I reviewed the policies, and have been lurking for some time now. So in a way Im not a newbie entriely.
This user is one of a number of new users who appeared, supported Giovanni33, reverted to his version, and behaved in a non-newbie-like way. Giovanni has been shown to use puppets in the past. In one case, he was exposed by a usercheck. He had pretended not to know BelindaGong, while she was aggressively reverting to his version and voting for what he wanted. After the usercheck, he said she was his wife. Then, while he was blocked for puppetry, Freethinker99 turned up and said he was new but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni — and reverted to Giovanni's version. Giovanni was asked to state his connection with these new users who were supporting him, and he said he had no connection to any of them. Unfortunately, he forgot he was logged on as Freethinker at the time. [1] He tried to get rid of the evidence [2], but we had already seen it. He then said that he hadn't seen Freethinker's name in the question, as it was added later. (It had been on his talk page for fifty minutes when he answered, and was DIRECTLY above the first words of the denial post he typed.)
There have been several other puppets, but they were not exposed through a user check. However, they have sometimes edited while logged off, and then acknowledged the edit, and the IPs were geographically close. There is EXTREMELY strong linguistic evidence linking these accounts. (One of my linguistics degrees involved forensic linguistics — detecting authorship, based on textual evidence, even in cases of people who are trying to hide their identity.) I do not wish to make the evidence public, as it will alert Giovanni to linguistic idiosyncrasies he should avoid with future puppets. Their contributions show that they are at Wikipedia for the purpose of supporting him. Because I have been involved in a content dispute with Giovanni33, I have not felt comfortable blocking his puppets, despite the strong evidence. I am willing to e-mail the evidence to any administrator who requests it, and I would urge any administrator reviewing this block not to consider unblocking without reviewing this evidence. AnnH ♫ 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Professor33, you have doubtless noticed that owing to Giovanni33's underhand behaviour in the past, either registering several accounts himself and using them to gain extra votes and reverts, or having his wife and a friend (and almost certainly other friends) join Wikipedia for that purpose while pretending not to know them, there is inevitably a certain amount of suspicion when a new user turns up, shows considerable familiarity with Wikipedia, and supports Giovanni, following him from one page to another and reverting for him. In the case of such a user having absolutely no connection to Giovanni, such suspicion must seem unfair, but it is impossible to avoid it. If it were discovered that Str1977 and I were married to each other, and had been when we joined Wikipedia, while putting on a pretence of initially not knowing each other and of gradually getting to know each other better, other editors would justifiably view us with suspicion, and would also view with suspicion any new editor who began to revert to something one of us wanted.
You say above that you have reviewed the policies and been lurking here. If the WP:SOCK policy is not one of those that you have reviewed, please do so now, and state clearly what your position here is on Wikipedia.
Apologies for this, if you're completely unconnected to Giovanni, though if you are, I'm sure you'll be horrified by his past behaviour (which by the way, he has never acknowledged as being wrong), and will therefore understand why such a question is necessary. Regards. AnnH ♫ 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. AnnH ♫ 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Now I am banned? Wow. This is a news worthy story, esp. if its standard treatment for other users. Has this happened before? I'm speechless. I'd like to see what other admin think about this action before I take it the story to some media friends I have. Lets assume good faith first before I make much ado about what may be nothing. But as of now im rather flabergasted! I guess I will send out e-mails too all the other admins to give this full exposure and commentary.
{{unblock}}
{{unblock}} Reasons stated multiple times above.
Your continued rants about being blocked for a POV are baseless, I do not believe in a god so I fail to see how I can share a POV with AnnH or Str1977. I have reviewed the information and the case is clear. -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
{{unblock}}
I am not a party to this. I am just pasting below a link to my page. I do not have any more comments to offer. I do not have any idea about the merit or de-merit of this block or protection of this page. As the user wrote me a mail and I replied to him, I am giving the information here for the sake of good order. I shall also not come back to offer any comments on this page. Thanks and Regards.
If you are willing to not abuse the unblock template, then I will allow discussion again. If you start acting inappropriately, this page will be reprotected. -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone advise me as to when I may be able to edit again? Someone did advise me that I could just start editing now but under a different account as only this user name is blocked, not my IP address. Is the correct and is the correct action to take? Others have indicated that I would be unblocked in the near future and have advised certain actions after my block has been removed. I am being patient but would like to know an update as to how long I should wait and which course of action is best out of the recommendations. Professor33 18:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this helps me if I'm giving contradictory advice by different administrators. Obviously someone must be wrong here. One admins is telling me its ok to do one thing as long as I do not edit in areas that Giovanni edits and suggests I go ahead and try it. That seems better than nothing. However, Musical Linguist is saying I'm not allowed to even this, and that it is blockable. That if I am unblocked or not is yet to be seen, depending on consensus among administrators. This brings me back to my question: How long would I have to wait before I'd know? Will there be a large enough pool of administrators so that there can be a real consensus among administrators (more than 50% of admins?) who can reached a consensus that is the result of an objective assessment of the facts, and with an assumption of good faith? This does not appear to be happening at the moment. The good faith rule is an important one that seems to be violated in my case. And what if there is no consensus? What then? Would admins who have an obvious axe to grind over the POV issue and against Giovanni be excluded in such as consensus? Is consensus the correct yardstick to use in a case such as this? Don't the rules matter or can consensus among a handful of administrators overturn the rules? Looking at how things are done here so far, it leaves much to be desired in terms of producing fairness and justice.
The reason you gave for me being blocked was not something I thought was against the rules. You state the real reason I was blocked was not for being a socket puppet but, as you state: "You were blocked for continuing the pattern of many new users who show up unexpectedly to support Giovanni33, who follow him around from one article to another, who revert with extraordinary confidence for a newcomer, who seem familiar with the background of some disputes, and who have strong linguistic and behavioral similarities to Giovanni." This is interesting. I ask, if it is a pattern of new users who show up to support Giovanni, at what point does it no longer become "unexpected." To say it is unexpected and to then admit it’s a pattern is contradictory. Does not a pattern itself negate it being "unexpected" if it continues along a pattern? The way I came to join Giovanni is perhaps not unique. If we see enough of this why is it still considered "unexpected?" If the sun comes up in the morning often enough then is it really "unexected" when it does so again? And is the fact of something happening in an expected manner or unexpected manner really a relevant factor? For it begs the question: expected or unexpected to whom? Do you think we all have the same kinds of expectations? I dare say not. To continue, your other reason for the block is showing "extraordinary confidence for a newcomer." I didn't know that was against the rules, either. In fact, is not the advise for new comers to Be bold?" Is not being bold showing confidence? Are we to be bold in a non-confident manner to abide by the non-confidence requirement rule that I must have missed reading somewhere? To continue, I am also blocked for being, "familiar with the background of some disputes." This must be a character fault of mine for as a general rule I do not enter into disputes without first become familiar with the disputes. If this were against the rule, it would be strange indeed. Is there a requirement that an editor must be ignorant of a dispute before entering into it? I must admit that does seem to prevail here to a large degree. I dare say this is a decidedly bad thing. Only if more editors were to be more familiar with the background of disputes before entering into them! As I have explained, I became interested in jumping into the edit process after lurking for some time. In particular I was interested in reading about events on other websites about alleged abuse and POV pushing by a "Christian Cabal." There are a few and they all name you by name MusicalLinguist. Therefore it’s hard to believe that your "spin" is merely coincidental but part and parcel of the real agenda I believe is at play here. This leads us directly into your last reason for my ban: Your assertion of "linguistic evidence," for which you describe yourself as having the ability to discern. If there is evidence then present it. If not, then it’s only an empty claim. Evidence must be looked at esp. by those who it is to be used again. It must be determined if the evidence supports the claim, and if so, does the evidence prove it? Since you do not have a voice recording to analyze respective voices, which in forensic linguistics is considered mostly reliable, I take it you are using written text. This is not reliable. Those who claim to be "forensic linguistics" push their own POV about their abilities, as it’s a profit driven industry, whose claims are often exaggerated. While I have other interests, such as my below edits indicate (which, as far as I know, Giovanni has never edited)
22:56, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Effects of global warming (→Methane release from hydrates) 21:56, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Effects of global warming (→Methane release from hydrates) 21:52, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Effects of global warming (→Methane release from hydrates) 21:45, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Methane?) 21:39, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Methane?) 20:16, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Article overstates the case) 19:33, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Methane?=) 19:32, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→About Scientific Concensus)
I wanted to try my hand at joining with an underdog against what I perceived as bullying. Giovanni often is alone on articles dominated by yourself and like-minded editors. I note he has even been issued an award by another editor for this very reason. I am not alone in recognizing this fact. The articles he tries to fix are in poor shape. I did not know it was against the rules to join with the purpose of aiding in such a good cause. I understand the appearance of being a socket puppet, but I figured this suspicion would have to be proved before punitive actions were taken. Actually, I've seen actions taken under the pretext of 'puppetry,' without proof and on very weak evidence, before. However, I do not think this is policy or correct. I feel it’s a grave injustice and a thin veil to exclude those editors who do choose to make it their task to counter systematic bias on contentious articles. I admire that. This is why I joined to aid Giovanni in a number of articles that he was facing the typical "gang" of editors who keep articles biased in one direction. He has no control over me, anymore than editors who agree with your POV have control over you. It’s clear this is about what POV's are allowed and what POV are not allowed. That to have a POV that supports Giovanni in his cause to counter bias in accordance with the NPOV policy, results in such an editor being banned is a corruption and abuse of power. The real issue here is politics, not policy. In fact, politics is placed before policy because to ban someone based on speculation and suspicion without proof relies on violating the policy of assuming good faith.
As I said, some time ago I started to follow with interest some of the going-on’s. I ran into a few critical sites of Wikipedia. They each alleged abuse with the process. I took these with grains of salt, however one topic--the alleged "Christian Cabal," which was said to exist around several article of related religious topics, dominated by interested Christian editors and admins with a strong POV in a close-knit relationship. I looked into this with some interest, on and off for several months. These sites document some of these things I have seen. It was posted on a blog I have frequented on religious issues in the formation bonding social capital. Accusing new editors who show a humanist/atheist POV, and naturally, side with Giovanni who expresses this POV, are banned. I wondered why is Giovanni not banned, also? I suppose it’s a question of maintaining dominance and additional editors can upset that. In all fairness, sometimes there are mistakes on the part of the banned editors themselves, which are gladly seized on, however, there is a double-standard, selective evidence, non equal enforcement of the rules, shifting arguments in an opportunist manner, i.e., when facts are presented which contradict the theories used to support actions against editors such as myself, they remained silent, and apply arguments in a contradictory and inconsistent manner. This proves to me a lack of honesty and, once again, the reality of old fashion politics at the center of this. I can explain this but it would require several more paragraphs, but is evidence if anyone is following this closely.
The one thing I do confess to is that I did follow Giovanni33 to articles to test out my theory: If I supported him, would something bad happen to me? Sadly it has. I just did not think I'd get banned indefinitely, given my contributions to other articles and having established myself as a legitimate editor. But because of coming into conflict with the “Christian cabal”, I am "no longer welcome at Wikipedia." This is a loss for Wikipedia but it did prove my point. I hope it leads to corrective action in the future. Professor33 00:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr33, let me try explain the contradiction you noticed:
One more thing: Isn't it funny that you, Professor33, are putting the same faulty argument as Giovanni33, that some admins should be excluded for not being "neutral" (which in your idiom means agreeing with the block)? Str1977 (smile back) 13:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
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 page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
. You may smile back here! I will come to see... -- Bhadani 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that I reflect on it, Str1977 is correct to bring up Animal Farm in this context. The injustices here mirrors the kind of group dyanmic despotism that is classic of totalitarianism. Those with "thought crimes" and those cast as "outsiders" are relagated to the bullying tactics by those in the "in-power," a group who serves each others duplicities with unabashed hypocracy. There are some good administrators here but they are clearly not in charge, or willing to break rank for fear of being targets themselves. The more I look at Wikipedia the more I can see how these rogue elements running roughshod over policy and precedure are corrupting the potencial of this probject. Its petty gangsterism at its worst, infecting the best of places. Someone needs to stand up and say out loud that the emperor has no clothes! Professor33 23:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Professor. When I originally asked you if you had any connection to Giovanni33, you ignored my question until you had been blocked, while continuing to act as a Giovanni puppet. You finally stated explicitly both that you are not Giovanni33 and that you do not know him. Now, there is a lot of evidence linking you to him, but there's also evidence linking you to HK30 (who is also linked by evidence to Giovanni), so I'm going to ask you directly:
Thanks. AnnH ♫ 23:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
A firm negative to both questions--as far as I know. Since these editors are confidencial and using anonymous nicks, so would I know if i knew them or not? I suppose it is possible but very unlikely. Maybe we know each other without knowing it? I hope my answer is very useful to you and clears up your confusions. Does this mean now you believe me? If not what is the motivation in asking this particular question? Btw, did you know there is evidence linking me to you? I've seen it! So I ask you: Are you me? Do you know me? Careful in a totalitarian society there is no 1st Amend. rights such as freedom of association. Knowing the wrong persion is a wiki-crime under wiki-fascism. Professor33 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd very much like to edit again but am unsure how to proceed. Some tell me to stay here and convince others to unblock me. If this is the course to take then please tell me how I should proceed. Otherwise, it's just a waiting game and I see no progress. If I am to follow the advice of others, by creating a new account and staying away from articles Giovanni edits so as to not be seen as a "puppet" anymore, then I would like to do so knowing it is not a trap to confirm socket-puppetry. The more fair minded aministrators have warned me not to take this route as its a trap. Its really shocking to see that volunteers are treated this way, including setting up traps by giving advice that are aimed at not helping you but banning you (or justifying their mistaken ban, in my case). That is a strange one. So, I ask for those that do advice this course of action: If I do edit under a new user name would you give me some assurance that if I did do so, and stayed away from articles that Giovanni is involved with, that I will be left to edit legally, and not fall into any kind of trap? Much regards! Professor33 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to clear up two things concerning the blocking of this account, and the subsequence appearance and blocking of NeoOne. The Professor33 account wrote (in the section above this one): "If I do edit under a new user name would you give me some assurance that if I did do so, and stayed away from articles that Giovanni is involved with, that I will be left to edit legally, and not fall into any kind of trap?" The NeoOne account's first article edit was to Christianity [3], which I would say is the main article that Giovanni has edited. NeoOne was shown by IP evidence to be Professor33, and later, Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks were all confirmed by Checkuser to be Giovanni33.
The other thing I want to clarify relates to comments made by admins Kelly Martin and Linuxbeak. Kelly Martin (who has checkuser access) said that she had reviewed checkuser evidence, and did not believe there was any sockpuppetry going on. She said that the secondary evidence was also weak. Linuxbeak answered an e-mail to Professor33 telling him: "I would like to note that a "CheckUser" has been performed on both your account and Giovanni33's account. The results were not similar at all, so there is very little "solid" evidence that you and Giovanni are one in the same." The letter, along with Kelly Martin's comment, is posted here, where Linuxbeak also says that the linguistic evidence is "sketchy at best".
Reference to these comments has been made elsewhere, to give the impression that Linuxbeak and Kelly Martin disagreed with the puppetry accusation after having seen all the evidence. First of all, a subsequent usercheck has confirmed that Professor33 is a Giovanni33 puppet (along with two other recent ones), so that is now settled. Secondly, Linuxbeak did not carry out the usercheck as he does not have usercheck access. A check was carried out by Kelly Martin, who (going by the IP evidence available at the end of June) did not say "not similar at all", but merely that she did not believe there was any sockpuppetry going on, and that the "secondary evidence [was] also weak". It seems that Linuxbeak took Kelly Martin's statement that she did not believe that Professor was a Giovanni puppet to mean that the "results were not similar at all". Thirdly, it is doubtful whether Kelly Martin or Linuxbeak had any prior knowledge of the Giovanni's history of puppetry. Fourthly, Kelly's comment about the "secondary" evidence referred to such things as the similarity of usernames, and the fact that Professor reverted to Giovanni's version after Giovanni had been blocked for 3RR. She had not seen any of the linguistic evidence, and neither had Linuxbeak, at the time they made those comments, though a full report has subsequently been sent to them. There is no administrator who, having seen the full report, said either in a private e-mail or publicly on Wikipedia that he or she was not convinced or that the evidence was not compelling.
As the connection between Professor33 and Giovanni33 has now been established by IP evidence (as well as by linguistic and other means), it is unlikely that the Professor33 account will try to reply. However, I am placing this statement here, for the record, in case other people may be led to believe that this block was carried out on very flimsy evidence. AnnH ♫ 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the policies, and have been lurking for some time now. So in a way Im not a newbie entriely.
This user is one of a number of new users who appeared, supported Giovanni33, reverted to his version, and behaved in a non-newbie-like way. Giovanni has been shown to use puppets in the past. In one case, he was exposed by a usercheck. He had pretended not to know BelindaGong, while she was aggressively reverting to his version and voting for what he wanted. After the usercheck, he said she was his wife. Then, while he was blocked for puppetry, Freethinker99 turned up and said he was new but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni — and reverted to Giovanni's version. Giovanni was asked to state his connection with these new users who were supporting him, and he said he had no connection to any of them. Unfortunately, he forgot he was logged on as Freethinker at the time. [1] He tried to get rid of the evidence [2], but we had already seen it. He then said that he hadn't seen Freethinker's name in the question, as it was added later. (It had been on his talk page for fifty minutes when he answered, and was DIRECTLY above the first words of the denial post he typed.)
There have been several other puppets, but they were not exposed through a user check. However, they have sometimes edited while logged off, and then acknowledged the edit, and the IPs were geographically close. There is EXTREMELY strong linguistic evidence linking these accounts. (One of my linguistics degrees involved forensic linguistics — detecting authorship, based on textual evidence, even in cases of people who are trying to hide their identity.) I do not wish to make the evidence public, as it will alert Giovanni to linguistic idiosyncrasies he should avoid with future puppets. Their contributions show that they are at Wikipedia for the purpose of supporting him. Because I have been involved in a content dispute with Giovanni33, I have not felt comfortable blocking his puppets, despite the strong evidence. I am willing to e-mail the evidence to any administrator who requests it, and I would urge any administrator reviewing this block not to consider unblocking without reviewing this evidence. AnnH ♫ 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Professor33, you have doubtless noticed that owing to Giovanni33's underhand behaviour in the past, either registering several accounts himself and using them to gain extra votes and reverts, or having his wife and a friend (and almost certainly other friends) join Wikipedia for that purpose while pretending not to know them, there is inevitably a certain amount of suspicion when a new user turns up, shows considerable familiarity with Wikipedia, and supports Giovanni, following him from one page to another and reverting for him. In the case of such a user having absolutely no connection to Giovanni, such suspicion must seem unfair, but it is impossible to avoid it. If it were discovered that Str1977 and I were married to each other, and had been when we joined Wikipedia, while putting on a pretence of initially not knowing each other and of gradually getting to know each other better, other editors would justifiably view us with suspicion, and would also view with suspicion any new editor who began to revert to something one of us wanted.
You say above that you have reviewed the policies and been lurking here. If the WP:SOCK policy is not one of those that you have reviewed, please do so now, and state clearly what your position here is on Wikipedia.
Apologies for this, if you're completely unconnected to Giovanni, though if you are, I'm sure you'll be horrified by his past behaviour (which by the way, he has never acknowledged as being wrong), and will therefore understand why such a question is necessary. Regards. AnnH ♫ 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. AnnH ♫ 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Now I am banned? Wow. This is a news worthy story, esp. if its standard treatment for other users. Has this happened before? I'm speechless. I'd like to see what other admin think about this action before I take it the story to some media friends I have. Lets assume good faith first before I make much ado about what may be nothing. But as of now im rather flabergasted! I guess I will send out e-mails too all the other admins to give this full exposure and commentary.
{{unblock}}
{{unblock}} Reasons stated multiple times above.
Your continued rants about being blocked for a POV are baseless, I do not believe in a god so I fail to see how I can share a POV with AnnH or Str1977. I have reviewed the information and the case is clear. -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 20:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
{{unblock}}
I am not a party to this. I am just pasting below a link to my page. I do not have any more comments to offer. I do not have any idea about the merit or de-merit of this block or protection of this page. As the user wrote me a mail and I replied to him, I am giving the information here for the sake of good order. I shall also not come back to offer any comments on this page. Thanks and Regards.
If you are willing to not abuse the unblock template, then I will allow discussion again. If you start acting inappropriately, this page will be reprotected. -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 18:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Can someone advise me as to when I may be able to edit again? Someone did advise me that I could just start editing now but under a different account as only this user name is blocked, not my IP address. Is the correct and is the correct action to take? Others have indicated that I would be unblocked in the near future and have advised certain actions after my block has been removed. I am being patient but would like to know an update as to how long I should wait and which course of action is best out of the recommendations. Professor33 18:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this helps me if I'm giving contradictory advice by different administrators. Obviously someone must be wrong here. One admins is telling me its ok to do one thing as long as I do not edit in areas that Giovanni edits and suggests I go ahead and try it. That seems better than nothing. However, Musical Linguist is saying I'm not allowed to even this, and that it is blockable. That if I am unblocked or not is yet to be seen, depending on consensus among administrators. This brings me back to my question: How long would I have to wait before I'd know? Will there be a large enough pool of administrators so that there can be a real consensus among administrators (more than 50% of admins?) who can reached a consensus that is the result of an objective assessment of the facts, and with an assumption of good faith? This does not appear to be happening at the moment. The good faith rule is an important one that seems to be violated in my case. And what if there is no consensus? What then? Would admins who have an obvious axe to grind over the POV issue and against Giovanni be excluded in such as consensus? Is consensus the correct yardstick to use in a case such as this? Don't the rules matter or can consensus among a handful of administrators overturn the rules? Looking at how things are done here so far, it leaves much to be desired in terms of producing fairness and justice.
The reason you gave for me being blocked was not something I thought was against the rules. You state the real reason I was blocked was not for being a socket puppet but, as you state: "You were blocked for continuing the pattern of many new users who show up unexpectedly to support Giovanni33, who follow him around from one article to another, who revert with extraordinary confidence for a newcomer, who seem familiar with the background of some disputes, and who have strong linguistic and behavioral similarities to Giovanni." This is interesting. I ask, if it is a pattern of new users who show up to support Giovanni, at what point does it no longer become "unexpected." To say it is unexpected and to then admit it’s a pattern is contradictory. Does not a pattern itself negate it being "unexpected" if it continues along a pattern? The way I came to join Giovanni is perhaps not unique. If we see enough of this why is it still considered "unexpected?" If the sun comes up in the morning often enough then is it really "unexected" when it does so again? And is the fact of something happening in an expected manner or unexpected manner really a relevant factor? For it begs the question: expected or unexpected to whom? Do you think we all have the same kinds of expectations? I dare say not. To continue, your other reason for the block is showing "extraordinary confidence for a newcomer." I didn't know that was against the rules, either. In fact, is not the advise for new comers to Be bold?" Is not being bold showing confidence? Are we to be bold in a non-confident manner to abide by the non-confidence requirement rule that I must have missed reading somewhere? To continue, I am also blocked for being, "familiar with the background of some disputes." This must be a character fault of mine for as a general rule I do not enter into disputes without first become familiar with the disputes. If this were against the rule, it would be strange indeed. Is there a requirement that an editor must be ignorant of a dispute before entering into it? I must admit that does seem to prevail here to a large degree. I dare say this is a decidedly bad thing. Only if more editors were to be more familiar with the background of disputes before entering into them! As I have explained, I became interested in jumping into the edit process after lurking for some time. In particular I was interested in reading about events on other websites about alleged abuse and POV pushing by a "Christian Cabal." There are a few and they all name you by name MusicalLinguist. Therefore it’s hard to believe that your "spin" is merely coincidental but part and parcel of the real agenda I believe is at play here. This leads us directly into your last reason for my ban: Your assertion of "linguistic evidence," for which you describe yourself as having the ability to discern. If there is evidence then present it. If not, then it’s only an empty claim. Evidence must be looked at esp. by those who it is to be used again. It must be determined if the evidence supports the claim, and if so, does the evidence prove it? Since you do not have a voice recording to analyze respective voices, which in forensic linguistics is considered mostly reliable, I take it you are using written text. This is not reliable. Those who claim to be "forensic linguistics" push their own POV about their abilities, as it’s a profit driven industry, whose claims are often exaggerated. While I have other interests, such as my below edits indicate (which, as far as I know, Giovanni has never edited)
22:56, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Effects of global warming (→Methane release from hydrates) 21:56, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Effects of global warming (→Methane release from hydrates) 21:52, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Effects of global warming (→Methane release from hydrates) 21:45, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Methane?) 21:39, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Methane?) 20:16, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Article overstates the case) 19:33, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Methane?=) 19:32, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→About Scientific Concensus)
I wanted to try my hand at joining with an underdog against what I perceived as bullying. Giovanni often is alone on articles dominated by yourself and like-minded editors. I note he has even been issued an award by another editor for this very reason. I am not alone in recognizing this fact. The articles he tries to fix are in poor shape. I did not know it was against the rules to join with the purpose of aiding in such a good cause. I understand the appearance of being a socket puppet, but I figured this suspicion would have to be proved before punitive actions were taken. Actually, I've seen actions taken under the pretext of 'puppetry,' without proof and on very weak evidence, before. However, I do not think this is policy or correct. I feel it’s a grave injustice and a thin veil to exclude those editors who do choose to make it their task to counter systematic bias on contentious articles. I admire that. This is why I joined to aid Giovanni in a number of articles that he was facing the typical "gang" of editors who keep articles biased in one direction. He has no control over me, anymore than editors who agree with your POV have control over you. It’s clear this is about what POV's are allowed and what POV are not allowed. That to have a POV that supports Giovanni in his cause to counter bias in accordance with the NPOV policy, results in such an editor being banned is a corruption and abuse of power. The real issue here is politics, not policy. In fact, politics is placed before policy because to ban someone based on speculation and suspicion without proof relies on violating the policy of assuming good faith.
As I said, some time ago I started to follow with interest some of the going-on’s. I ran into a few critical sites of Wikipedia. They each alleged abuse with the process. I took these with grains of salt, however one topic--the alleged "Christian Cabal," which was said to exist around several article of related religious topics, dominated by interested Christian editors and admins with a strong POV in a close-knit relationship. I looked into this with some interest, on and off for several months. These sites document some of these things I have seen. It was posted on a blog I have frequented on religious issues in the formation bonding social capital. Accusing new editors who show a humanist/atheist POV, and naturally, side with Giovanni who expresses this POV, are banned. I wondered why is Giovanni not banned, also? I suppose it’s a question of maintaining dominance and additional editors can upset that. In all fairness, sometimes there are mistakes on the part of the banned editors themselves, which are gladly seized on, however, there is a double-standard, selective evidence, non equal enforcement of the rules, shifting arguments in an opportunist manner, i.e., when facts are presented which contradict the theories used to support actions against editors such as myself, they remained silent, and apply arguments in a contradictory and inconsistent manner. This proves to me a lack of honesty and, once again, the reality of old fashion politics at the center of this. I can explain this but it would require several more paragraphs, but is evidence if anyone is following this closely.
The one thing I do confess to is that I did follow Giovanni33 to articles to test out my theory: If I supported him, would something bad happen to me? Sadly it has. I just did not think I'd get banned indefinitely, given my contributions to other articles and having established myself as a legitimate editor. But because of coming into conflict with the “Christian cabal”, I am "no longer welcome at Wikipedia." This is a loss for Wikipedia but it did prove my point. I hope it leads to corrective action in the future. Professor33 00:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr33, let me try explain the contradiction you noticed:
One more thing: Isn't it funny that you, Professor33, are putting the same faulty argument as Giovanni33, that some admins should be excluded for not being "neutral" (which in your idiom means agreeing with the block)? Str1977 (smile back) 13:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
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 page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
. You may smile back here! I will come to see... -- Bhadani 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that I reflect on it, Str1977 is correct to bring up Animal Farm in this context. The injustices here mirrors the kind of group dyanmic despotism that is classic of totalitarianism. Those with "thought crimes" and those cast as "outsiders" are relagated to the bullying tactics by those in the "in-power," a group who serves each others duplicities with unabashed hypocracy. There are some good administrators here but they are clearly not in charge, or willing to break rank for fear of being targets themselves. The more I look at Wikipedia the more I can see how these rogue elements running roughshod over policy and precedure are corrupting the potencial of this probject. Its petty gangsterism at its worst, infecting the best of places. Someone needs to stand up and say out loud that the emperor has no clothes! Professor33 23:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Professor. When I originally asked you if you had any connection to Giovanni33, you ignored my question until you had been blocked, while continuing to act as a Giovanni puppet. You finally stated explicitly both that you are not Giovanni33 and that you do not know him. Now, there is a lot of evidence linking you to him, but there's also evidence linking you to HK30 (who is also linked by evidence to Giovanni), so I'm going to ask you directly:
Thanks. AnnH ♫ 23:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
A firm negative to both questions--as far as I know. Since these editors are confidencial and using anonymous nicks, so would I know if i knew them or not? I suppose it is possible but very unlikely. Maybe we know each other without knowing it? I hope my answer is very useful to you and clears up your confusions. Does this mean now you believe me? If not what is the motivation in asking this particular question? Btw, did you know there is evidence linking me to you? I've seen it! So I ask you: Are you me? Do you know me? Careful in a totalitarian society there is no 1st Amend. rights such as freedom of association. Knowing the wrong persion is a wiki-crime under wiki-fascism. Professor33 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd very much like to edit again but am unsure how to proceed. Some tell me to stay here and convince others to unblock me. If this is the course to take then please tell me how I should proceed. Otherwise, it's just a waiting game and I see no progress. If I am to follow the advice of others, by creating a new account and staying away from articles Giovanni edits so as to not be seen as a "puppet" anymore, then I would like to do so knowing it is not a trap to confirm socket-puppetry. The more fair minded aministrators have warned me not to take this route as its a trap. Its really shocking to see that volunteers are treated this way, including setting up traps by giving advice that are aimed at not helping you but banning you (or justifying their mistaken ban, in my case). That is a strange one. So, I ask for those that do advice this course of action: If I do edit under a new user name would you give me some assurance that if I did do so, and stayed away from articles that Giovanni is involved with, that I will be left to edit legally, and not fall into any kind of trap? Much regards! Professor33 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to clear up two things concerning the blocking of this account, and the subsequence appearance and blocking of NeoOne. The Professor33 account wrote (in the section above this one): "If I do edit under a new user name would you give me some assurance that if I did do so, and stayed away from articles that Giovanni is involved with, that I will be left to edit legally, and not fall into any kind of trap?" The NeoOne account's first article edit was to Christianity [3], which I would say is the main article that Giovanni has edited. NeoOne was shown by IP evidence to be Professor33, and later, Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks were all confirmed by Checkuser to be Giovanni33.
The other thing I want to clarify relates to comments made by admins Kelly Martin and Linuxbeak. Kelly Martin (who has checkuser access) said that she had reviewed checkuser evidence, and did not believe there was any sockpuppetry going on. She said that the secondary evidence was also weak. Linuxbeak answered an e-mail to Professor33 telling him: "I would like to note that a "CheckUser" has been performed on both your account and Giovanni33's account. The results were not similar at all, so there is very little "solid" evidence that you and Giovanni are one in the same." The letter, along with Kelly Martin's comment, is posted here, where Linuxbeak also says that the linguistic evidence is "sketchy at best".
Reference to these comments has been made elsewhere, to give the impression that Linuxbeak and Kelly Martin disagreed with the puppetry accusation after having seen all the evidence. First of all, a subsequent usercheck has confirmed that Professor33 is a Giovanni33 puppet (along with two other recent ones), so that is now settled. Secondly, Linuxbeak did not carry out the usercheck as he does not have usercheck access. A check was carried out by Kelly Martin, who (going by the IP evidence available at the end of June) did not say "not similar at all", but merely that she did not believe there was any sockpuppetry going on, and that the "secondary evidence [was] also weak". It seems that Linuxbeak took Kelly Martin's statement that she did not believe that Professor was a Giovanni puppet to mean that the "results were not similar at all". Thirdly, it is doubtful whether Kelly Martin or Linuxbeak had any prior knowledge of the Giovanni's history of puppetry. Fourthly, Kelly's comment about the "secondary" evidence referred to such things as the similarity of usernames, and the fact that Professor reverted to Giovanni's version after Giovanni had been blocked for 3RR. She had not seen any of the linguistic evidence, and neither had Linuxbeak, at the time they made those comments, though a full report has subsequently been sent to them. There is no administrator who, having seen the full report, said either in a private e-mail or publicly on Wikipedia that he or she was not convinced or that the evidence was not compelling.
As the connection between Professor33 and Giovanni33 has now been established by IP evidence (as well as by linguistic and other means), it is unlikely that the Professor33 account will try to reply. However, I am placing this statement here, for the record, in case other people may be led to believe that this block was carried out on very flimsy evidence. AnnH ♫ 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)