User talk:WalkerThrough

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, WalkerThrough! Thank you for your contributions. I am Intelati and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

intelatitalk 20:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles

Hi WalkerThrough, I see you are having a bit of a discussion with JamesBWatson on your talk pages. It would be better to have this discussion on the Discussion page of the Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles article. In that way others could more easily join in. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WalkerThrough. You have new messages at LWG's talk page.
Message added 19:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LWG ^talk 19:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been edit-warring and engaging in tendentious editing on the bible article. I have blocked your account for 24 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is unfair, religious discrimination, and wrong. Slrub is the one that twice reverted my edits, I only reverted his once. Then I put a POV tag and who gets blocked?? You got it, the Christian. Unbiased? I don't think so. Oh and User "Mark of the Beast" comments against me on the ANI, lol. Wow.

I am very displeased and disappointed with the recent behavior by anti-Christian editors on WP. They are making some WP articles biased and religiously discriminatory. Who would of ever thought that you can have an Encyclopedia page about the Bible in which the editors refuse to mention its own claim to divine inspiration in the main section...awful. This is really lowering the quality of the relevant WP articles. Then Slrub follows me around to my other good edits on other pages and reverts them (if any believers could go to my contribs and revert Slrub's bias, I would appreciate it). When I appeal to ANI about discrimination, I get banned. This comes down to who has the numbers, and their bias wins. So, if unbelievers have the majority on WP, which at times it seems to be true, then they get their way totally against common sense and reason, including censoring out the Christian views with strong Reliable sources about the Bible. This is sad and wrong. The WP Bible page is not neutral because its editors are censoring out the Christian view in the lead (which is the only section many people may read). I pray for those who have made themselves my enemies, that they may be saved and receive wisdom, as the LORD says: "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord." Without that, they have no wisdom, as it shows with my recent interactions with them. These anti-Christian types are seriously downgrading the worth of certain WP articles. One day, they will find out that Jesus is Lord, and the Bible is His Word. Until then, maybe they will stay in darkness. The good news in all this is that everyone knows WP is a secular Encyclopedia, and therefore not trustworthy for matters of faith, like information on the Bible. Happily, I believe many on the internet will go to a Christian source for truth on the Bible (I've been told WP is not about truth). Fine then, if that's how WP editors see it. The world can go elsewhere for the truth, who has a Name: Jesus. God bless all of you, even those who opposed me (and didn't want me to bless them). Love in the King, WalkerThrough (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, WalkerThrough. If you disagree with your block, I suggest you read the Guide to appealing blocks. If you place {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}} on this page, another administrator will review your block. I do strongly recommend that you first read the guide, though. At the moment, your block will last for 24 hours; after that time has elapsed, you will be able to edit then. If you wish to continue contributing to the Bible article once your block is over, I would suggest that you take part in the discussions on the talk page before making any edits to the article itself. There is a discussion in progress about what the content of the article should be and some of the concerns you raised are being addressed. However, editing the page before taking part in discussion may be seen as disruptive. If you have any problems, please let me know. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, WalkerThrough. Just so you know, ANI is a terrible place to take a dispute. You got off easy; that place is a viper's nest. I don't know who advised you to go there, but it was bad advice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not an admin. As for the discussion, the decision is made by consensus. This is not a straight vote, but a discussion between editors. A consensus is reached where a majority of editors reach a common decision. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict w/ the above 2 comments) WalkerThrough, we don't generally decide things by voting. As others have noted, Wikipedia:Consensus is the relevant policy, but as you might expect, the actual determination of consensus is often extremely complicated and difficult.

When I am aware of, or involved in, a content dispute, my first recourse is discussion on the talk page. If that seems not to be working, I look at the top of the talk page for relevant WikiProjects and post notes on their talk pages, requesting opinions from anyone reading there. My third option, seldom needed, would be a content RFC (that's "Request For Comment").

I know, this site is full of ill-marked roads, many of which feature dangerous potholes, and worse. I'm sorry it's not easier to know what to do. Please feel free to ask me for help anytime, though. I am an administrator (for whatever that's worth), and I'm a bit experienced in navigating our minefields. I also try to make it a point to, um, treat others as I'd like to be treated? I think I read that somewhere. ;)

Please do be careful around here, though. You're learning that... -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Some advice which I recommended earlier

Thank you Ian. The problem here is not following WP policy. I have been. I included 6 RS for that statement in the lead. Your example of the Muslim is different, because I've been insisting that it be included on the basis of the site's guidelines. Also, I've been blaming the reversion on a lack of neutrality as well as opposing the Bible. The problem is the numerous non-believers that just don't want the Word of God known and they use their numbers to make it happen. Why did you remove the POV. You are my brother, you need to support me. The article is not being neutral if the Christian view is censored out. Please support your brother, Ian. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi GT, you're great. May God bless you, and I know He has. In terms of the Bible lead, I hope we don't let slip the importance, like you said, of also including a statement that the Bible says it is inspired by God, in addition to the fact of so many people believing it. What the Bible says matters more than what 7 billion people believe, because it is the Word of God. There are 5 editors who have expressed support for this in the lead. Hopefully, we can build on that to reach a general agreement for inclusion. WalkerThrough (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a man

For some reason one editor, Slrub, has been referring to me as she or her. I don't know if he has done this to try and downplay my edits, or insult me. Why he assumed I'm a woman, I don't know. I'd like everyone to know that I'm a man, created by the living God. I praise my Creator: "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well." (Psalm 139:14) WalkerThrough (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sure Slrub was not trying to insult you. Some people on the internet use "she" to refer to someone whose gender they do not know in an attempt to point out the way other people assume maleness and use "he". LWG ^talk 23:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Also please don't think someone is trying to downplay your edits by referring to you as female as we don't consider edits from females any less then those from males Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

More than half of the world's population are female, so when I do not know someone's gender I refer to that person as she. If you prefer I refer to you as he, I will from now on, of course. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But at the same time, 87% of Wikipedians are male. Zooming in to a more defined population does change statistical breakdowns of population. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to let people know that you are male, you could always pop this on your talk page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Walker - just to say that I am glad to see your return - Lugnad (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to see your return. I wish you were around yesterday. God bless you WalkerThrough (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going abroad tomorrow, so please excuse me for a time, you will do just fine Lugnad (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. I like having you around. May God bless your trip, and if you pray, please remember this situation. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bible

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bible#Other Abrahamic religions - lead. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

Thanks, just did. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. It is clear from this edit and similar that you are uninterested in producing a factual encyclopedia but wish to insert tracts from your own beliefs. Whilst an encyclopedia can reference such beliefs, it cannot present such beliefs as reliable sources, since they clearly are not. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WalkerThrough (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is very unfair. Since my last block I have not done any disruptive editing. I have been following WP policy. Then an administrator (KillerChihuahua) starts hounding me when I am doing good edits and following all policies. When I ask her to back off because she was coming close to harassing me, I get blocked indefinitely for abusive editing with a very bad example. This does not have to do with disruptive editing. This has to do with an administrator opposing me at every turn, and when I warn her about harassment, I get blocked. Someone please help me. Please look at the edits mentioned for blocking. Those are sourced statements according to the Bible and what Christians believe. That does not break WP policy. Those are acceptable primary and secondary sources. I am presenting the Christian view neutrally. How unfair. This is religious discrimination. WalkerThrough (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As you have withdrawn your request for unblock below, I am declining. I will also be removing access to this talkpage so that the WP:SOAP does not continue in the future. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocked again...This is religious discrimination

Someone please help. WalkerThrough (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

When Black Kite first blocked me, there was no example. Now after blocking the administrator is digging for examples. Oh Lord, help me. WalkerThrough (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would be quite happy for the editor to be unblocked if, and only if he would agree to cease inserting his own concepts into religious articles. It's a very simple request, and I can't see any reason why he could not agree to it. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite, is it ok if I give the Christian view with RS, if I clearly state this is according to a Primary source (i.e. the Bible) or according to Christians (with RS)?? WalkerThrough (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the comment below sums it up; the link I gave above (the first one) is a prime example of that. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite, I can agree not to insert my POV as fact in the article. I am a Christian with some knowledge about my faith. As such, in the appropriate places, (and articles on issues of Christianity) I would like to offer whatever knowledge I can contribute to WP on the Christian view neutrally, using RS. I hope you can be satisfied with my acceptance of your concern, and we can resolve this problem. Are you satisfied? WalkerThrough (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think an indefinite block for this is very harsh. Indefinite blocks should be used for wilfull malevolence and disruption, or for someone who has shown himself to be unable to conform over a longer period. This is not what we have here, Walkerthrough have responded quite well to calls for collaboration after initially getting of to a bad start for lack of understanding of the editing culture. We should help Walker Through to learn how to contribute well, not block him. If Walker Through wishes I could mentor him in this process. I agree with Black Kite that we need a clear statement that Walker Through understands that inserting Bible quotes into articles without prior consensus is not a good way to edit - because it is controversial when to do that. But I am quite certain that he can understand that. This is not religious discrimination, it is the way that secular encyclopedias are written. He also needs to show that he understands that he is not presenting "the christian viewpoint", but a particular Christian viewpoint that is likely to coincide primarily with his own. I am not going to review the unblock request because of my previous involvement with the case, but I do think that indefinite is excessive in the absence of any evidence of actual malevolence. I hope the reviewing admin will consider my statement.•ʍaunus•snunɐw• 01:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Indefinite does not mean infinite; it means until the editor agrees to stop the issues that are wasting serious amounts of other editor's time. As I said on ANI, if any admin believes the user is sincere about this, then they may unblock without further consultation. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Black Kite, as you mentioned on the ANI, I certainly agree not to give OR in articles. I have been trying hard to follow this rule. I believe in following the WP policy, and I have working very hard to source any controversial statements (explicitly telling this is what the Bible (a primary source) says, or Christians (with RS). If an administrator could please unblock me, as Black Kite mentioned, since I am of course agreeing not to give OR. WalkerThrough (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Do you realize that it is NPOV, not OR, which you have been most egregiously violating? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
        • • • • • A case in point that I just must point out. The blocking admin (Black Kite) says I need to promise not to insert OR to be unblocked. The admin (Killer) who has been "keeping an eye on me" (i.e. looking at almost every single edit I make) says I have not been breaking OR, but rather NPOV. I think I have been completely vindicated for this unjust block! Hallelujah. WalkerThrough (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite said at ANI that I can be unblocked if I "to promise to stop inserting OR into religious articles." That's why I talked about OR. I am agreeing to try my best not to add any OR to any article, and also to follow NPOV. Could someone please unblock me now? WalkerThrough (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not how I read Black Kite's comment. I think it meant "I will accept it if another administrator makes the judgement that the block should be lifted, but in my opinion that option should not be considered unless WalkerThrough promises not to add OR." I don't see it as meaning that nothing else should be taken into account. However, even if I am wrong in thinking that was what Black Kite meant, it is just Black Kite's opinion, and any administrator considering unblocking needs to make an independent assessment of the situation, taking into consideration all the relevant circumstances. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite said at ANI: "if anyone wants to unblock then that's fine, but I think the editor needs to promise to stop inserting OR into religious articles exactly as the comment below my block statement represents." I think I have done that. Now that I have fulfilled the blocking admin's condition for unblocking, could someone please unblock me. Black Kite said it was late and he was only going to be around a short time more. Someone??? WalkerThrough (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there nobody reading this? I think the issue has been resolved, but nobody has unblocked me. Maunus please help, or somebody! WalkerThrough (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How is the world going to respect WP if its admins block Christians who are providing the Christian and Biblical views, in order to censor out the Christian view (presented according to WP policy)?? My personal esteem of WP is rapidly declining as I interact with biased editors who break policy and then wrongly accuse me of doing so. Not only that, but some admins have proven to be irresponsible with their powers. One admin, Killer, has been harassing me. If any fair person would review the examples given for blocking me, they will know I did nothing wrong (edits followed NPOV, No OR, V). Could somebody please put an end to this unjust block?? WalkerThrough (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't unblock you now because of my involvement. But I can tell you this. That unblock request is not going to work. It never works to blame someone else, or cry harrassment. It just doesn't. What works is showing that you recognizing that you must have done something wrong to get blocked and state a willingness to avoid repeating that. I suggest you restate your unblock request as soon as you can, as it is now it is not working in your favor.•ʍaunus•snunɐw• 02:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think I've broken any WP policy with those edits given in the block box as support for the block? WalkerThrough (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No I don't think you have violated any rules - I think you have shown bad judgment. I had hoped that after the first time you would have realized that inserting Bible quotes out of context without prior discussion wouldn'tbe seen as helpful by other editors. It does seem as if you are as it were "on a mission from God", and that doesn't work here. Encyclopedias are not for missions, they are for objective presentations of (mostly) scholarly views. We can quote the Bible when there is a particular reason that using this primary source is more helpful than using a scholarly secondary source. That is not very often the case.•ʍaunus•snunɐw• 03:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, I'm so sorry for wasting your time with this nonsense. I am so grateful for your support and help, in righteousness. I am very disappointed in WP for the actions of certain admins. You on the other hand, shine a bright ray of goodness in a dark cloud that has swept in. May God bless you abundantly (I say that from the bottom of my heart with all kind intentions, please don't be offended). WalkerThrough (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon the review of the past few weeks, I think my difficult and unpleasant WP editing experience may have come to an end. It is clear to me that there are many non-Christian editors who are determined to censor the Bible and Christian faith views from being presented, even in accordance with each and every WP policy. This is very sad, because WP has so much potential to be a source for good, reliable information in all the world. However, if this is how the Christian view is treated, it seriously undermines the credibility of WP. Maybe it would be better for me to be blocked forever so that I don't waste my time bending over backwards to follow all of WP policies to improve articles (especially on Christian topics), only to have almost all my hard work reverted by those who wish to censor views of faith. I have added significant relevant Bible verses as acceptable primary sources, and respected Christian theological secondary sources, explicitly stating these are their views, and they are over and over, time and again undone with some non-sense accusation like I'm breaking NPOV. This indeed is sad. I hope the world will know the bias of many WP editors and not trust the supposed NPOV (for lack of the Christian side, and strong presentation of the anti-Christian side and arguments). God bless all the WP editors. Sadly, but truly, WalkerThrough (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have heard the words of my Lord:

14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

As such, I put this for the benefit of all my brothers and sisters who may experience the same continual anti-Christian resistance. Children of God, we cannot yoke ourselves together with unbelievers. We want to go left, they want to go right, it can't work. The yoke of oxen can only go one way (i.e. the Encyclopedia can only read one way). If you experience the same constant unfair, biased opposition of unbelievers, God says do not be yoked with them, but come out from among them. I hope this lesson that I've learned will prove beneficial for my family in Jesus, the Son of God, and Lord of lords. There is no need to unblock me. At this point, I have no desire to edit on WP, as I can not yoke myself with you unbelievers. I hope you "come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4). WP claims to present articles with a NPOV, but this is not always true since legitimate Christian views are targeted for reverts, and then Christian editors are blocked indefinitely to silence them (with false allegations of disruptive editing), censoring out the Christian viewpoint. This case speaks volumes to the issue of integrity and uprightness among a number of WP editors. Blessed be the glorious Name of Jesus, forever and ever. WalkerThrough (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"The" Christian view

Ian about the heart, this is not about our opinions. This is about English. One definition of the heart is the seat of the will and understanding http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,heart (that's Webster's). It's true. I didn't write the dictionary. We can't ignore this is a definition of heart in addition to the physical organ of the heart. WalkerThrough (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I discussed that: Heart as a metaphor for emotions (or the will) is still covered by "mental state." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

They are quite different, as the heart goes much deeper than the mind. The seat of your will and beliefs, means that exact thoughts may not surface to the mind, but they influence one's behavior. They are quite different. As such, both should be included. This really does not need to be battle. Can we work together to make it better, by adding some useful information? WalkerThrough (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thread moved from WP:ANI

Hello, I (User:WalkerThrough) am a newcomer and have been accused of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. My user page says I have been blocked indefinitely because of sockpuppetry (although there are other reasons as well, which I don't believe deserve an indef block). Could a neutral third party please review this charge? I used those 2 other accounts (Pageeditor7 and ServantofLord) for a total of only 3 edits combined before I knew the rule about sockpuppets. I changed my first name from ServantofLord when I realized this ID would not be so helpful on WP (that was my first account used for only 1 edit ever). When I learned about the rule, I reverted the only 2 edits I had made as Pageeditor7. Here are the diffs: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles&diff=prev&oldid=452187703 and https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Judas_of_Galilee&diff=452189392&oldid=452079814. I don't want people to believe a wrongful charge against me, but nobody has removed that accusation. I have repeatedly explained this to MuZemike (admin who put the notice about sockpuppetry). He has been unwilling to remove the post, which makes me think this is an abuse of power. I have already had another admin (Maunus) tell me that what I did was not technically sockpuppetry. In terms of my indef block, Maunus also stated that he thought it was very harsh. As I said, I'm a newcomer. I tried my best to follow all policies and admin (Black Kite) gave me an indef block citing 2 edits I made that were properly sourced and don't break any policies. He even said on his talk page, Sept. 30 "but quite frankly I was only half way down the first page of contributions since the previous block before I hit the button. But then that's just me :)." I thought an indef block was given for serious and intentional patterns of transgressing policy. I do understand now that if I want to make any controversial religious edits, I would first need to get consensus on the talk page. I also now understand how someone may consider my edits disruptive, which I did not intend. I apologize for any edits that really were disruptive. Also, when I politely asked admin Bwilkins to review my block (you can email me to see my email to him), he responded:

"As long as you disgustingly believe that your block was "unjust" you will never be unblocked. "Indefinite" is not "infinite" ... It means until the community believes you won't reoffend. Well, you are the most disgusting Christian I have ever met. It's not all about you, and you've been acting 180 degrees against what our Lord taught. Now fuck off, non-Christian scum."

I was quite shocked that someone who behaves like this in doing administrative tasks is allowed to be a WP admin. Anyways, could someone please help a newcomer? -WalkerThrough

So who abused their powers exactly? You've named three admins in the same breath (Muzemike, Black Kite and BWilkins). That's a lot of admin abuse. Of course: accusations of admin abuse usually equal... admins getting abused. What uninvolved administrative action against the alleged abusers is your goal? Doc talk 07:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not involved and I don't want to be involved, but if Bwilkins actually said this, he should be ashamed of himself, these words are not very fitting of a Christian (or sysop for that matter) and it comes across as self-righteous. If he didn't actually say this and the blocked (ab)user is lying or distorting the truth, than I apologize to Bwilkins and others who may have concerns. God bless, — CharlieEchoTango — 07:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I can forward the email to anyone of Bwilkins saying this to me in response to my request for a block request. -WalkerThrough 180.188.250.106 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not accusing all of them of abuse of power. It seems to me that MuZemike is abusing his power in putting a notice that I'm blocked indef because of sockpuppetry after repeated explanations of the situation. I'm also wondering if Black Kite is abusing his power by giving me an indef block after, according to his own words, only looking at a half page of contribs. I have emailed him trying to tell him what I've learned and how I thought those edits were acceptable, as well as apologizing for any real disruptive editing. The administrative actions I would highly appreciate is to have the sockpuppetry notice removed for the 3 accounts. I would be happy to put an explicit tag on Pageeditor7 and ServantofLord that they are retired. I would also appreciate someone unblocking me, since it seems that an indef block is very harsh when I'm a newcomer trying to follow policy. I have already been blocked for a number of days. -WalkerThrough 180.188.250.106 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And as the blocking admin, I am not going to unblock. I did originally state at ANI that anyone could unblock without consulting me if they believed the editor was here to contribute constructively, but the further editing patterns that emerged in the ANI ([1]) changed my mind on that. In fact, I'm not completely convinced we're not being trolled here; but even if we're not, it's very clear that this editor does not understand how Wikipedia works and this is going to have to change if they are going to edit here again. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, WalkerThrough almost also emailed me, which included " I would also like the unfair charge of sock puppetry dropped. Can we do this the easy way? I don't want you to run the risk of losing your adminship. If I don't hear from you soon, I plan to proceed to the Arb. Com.". Which, given that he's socking right now through an IP, probably sums the issue up. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been off line for a few days - I'm travelling - I was both surprised and disappointed at how this has developed. I cannot condone Walker using another name whether or not it was real sockputtery (is there such a word?) However here we have a new editor who fell at just about every hurdle, and was admonished with warnings and bans. Yet each time he got up again, made his apology, resolved to learn and tried again.

I am horrified that any admin can say of such a learner we're clearly better off without this editor. Lugnad (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

BASC appeal

We are pleased to inform you that your appeal is successful and BASC has granted you an unblock on your account, subject to the following conditions :

• As you have agreed in your email, to voluntarily cease inserting statements into religion-related articles, broadly defined, that violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. In other words, you are not to insert statements for the purposes of advocacy.
  • If another editor disagrees with your edits on these articles, that you shall seek for consensus on the article's talk page.

We hope that you will take this opportunity to contribute in a constructive manner to the encyclopedia.

- For the Committee, Mailer Diablo 11:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: I meant that I agree not to insert POV in the future, as I didn't believe that I had been doing that in the past. I think the effect is the same going forward. However, I still maintain that I did not break the NPOV policy with the edits cited by BlackKite for blocking me. WalkerThrough (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again to the BASC for all your work on my case and making a good judgment. WalkerThrough (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I give glory in the highest to my Lord Jesus Christ for answering my prayers and causing me to be unblocked. Thank you Lord! Sadly, I also believe the same as I did previously that in light of the current community on WP, I am unable to be an effective editor for the encyclopedia (see my last edit on the talk page section: Blocked again...This is religious discrimination). I hope someday this will change so that I can again participate in the project. WalkerThrough (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)