Talk:Christianity

Archives

Archived discussions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23,

Nicene Creed warning label

I'm starting a new section since the earlier one got sidetracked. What still needs to be addressed before we remove the NPOV warning from the Nicene Creed section of this article? Wesley 04:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wesley. Good idea to revisit this. There are a number of problems outstanding. These are listed in the earlier section and most have not yet been addressed. I will not repeat them, but would like to clarify one point which appears to have been misunderstood. This is the statement that the Nicene Creed is subscribed to by the overwhelming majority of Christians. No one disputes that the majority of modern christians claim to subscribe to the Nicene Creed - which incidentally is slightly different thing anyway. But even this formulation fudges several important issues. The first is that the overwhelming majority think (wrongly, on two counts, I supose you will agree) that they are subscribing to the earliest formal Christian creed which was confirmed at the Council of Nicea. The second is that the Eastern and Western Churches are actually refering to two different texts (this is a separate point from the fact that neither was even considered at Nicea). I suppose it's just a question of definitions - to take an analogy, it's rather like saying that "most religions accept the scriptures" instead of saying that "most relions accept their own scriptures".

On a second question I have to own up to a degree of confusion. One of the points made earlier was that the Orthodox view on the filioque was being repeatedly airbrushed out of the article. This airbrushing (ie repeated reversions) was not disputed but justified by Str1977 on the grounds that the filioque was a matter of trivial importance. A citation and a link was then supplied which showed that on the contrary the Orthodox Church regarded and still regards it as a matter of very great importance. Str1977 then said "As for what I wrote about the Filioque: Yes, that was my opinion, my POV, if you will." Now no-one disputes anyone's right to voice an opinion on these discussion pages, but I wonder if I'm missing something if contributions can be reverted on the grounds of what are explicitly admitted to be personal opinions. Can anyone help me on this one? Am I missing a logical step somewhere?

To understand how much this contributor's opinions differ from those of the Orthodox Church all anyone needs to do is take a look at the Orthodox Wiki site. A link was provided to this site but that link was immediately removed without explanation. The first Paragraph of the page to which the link referred gives a flavour of the Orthodox view:

Filioque is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Church of Rome in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the Great Schism between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the Holy Spirit thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son."

Its inclusion in the Creed is a violation of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which forbade and anathematized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879-880. This word was not included by the Council of Nicea nor of Constantinople, and most in the Orthodox Church consider this inclusion to be a heresy.

The description of the filioque as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great Father and Pillar of the Church, St. Photius the Great, in his On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. He describes it as a heresy of Triadology, striking at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.

Now let me emphasise that this is not necessarily my opinion. My point is that the views of four out of the five Patriarchies are being airbrushed off this page on the basis of what is admitted to be a POV and no-one else seems to find this at all odd. Could someone help me here. Many thanks. Trollwatcher 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not brushed out the Eastern view on the Filoque. Yes, I made some references to my view on the importance of the controversy (regarding the Fq's substance). Maybe I shouldn't have done this, as it has no bearing on the article. All issues regarding the Fq controversy belong into the Fq article and not into this brief overview. In the light of the topic of the article and of the section, the controversy is well covered.

Still, apart from the Fq, Eastern Orthodox, Old Oriental (whether Monophysite or Nestorian), the RCC and those Protestants doing creeds adhere to the Nicene creed (and whether they believe it to be the oldest creed is speculation and purely beside the point), while quite a lot of Protestants also subscribe to the substance/content of the creed without doing creeds themselves. Str1977 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so it appears that the treatment of the Nicene Creed and the filioque is the sticking point. For starters, would it be helpful or more confusing to say the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" instead of "Nicene Creed." Advantages are that it specifies which of at least three different versions might be meant, and gives a brief nod to the filioque issue without wallowing in it, while the disadvantage seems to be that it's considerably more syllables -- three times as many. The RCC does not condemn the Nicene-Constantinopolitan version, and I think even allows its Eastern Rite churches to use it regularly, while most Protestants likely don't really have a strong opinion on the matter, unless it's that all creeds are divisive and should therefore be done away with. Trollwatcher, while I'm quite aware of the problems caused by adding the filioque clause to the creed, allow me to suggest that this particular paragraph of this particular article may not be the best place to highlight those problems. At whatever point the article does discuss the East-West division, perhaps this issue could be brieflyhighlighted there with links to the Nicene Creed and Filioque articles. Wesley 05:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 if 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 throughot 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)

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)

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)

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)

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