User talk:Professor33

I reviewed the policies, and have been lurking for some time now. So in a way Im not a newbie entriely.

Note to admins reviewing the block

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)

The area of forensic linguistic is highly disputed and not reliable. One should familiarize oneself with its critics before accepting its premise. There is good reason why it and other things such as the polygraph test are not admissible in the court of law.Professor33 20:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Here is the notice of the block to admins. Wikibofh_(talk) 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cards on the table

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)

P.S. You'll find more background information about this problem here. AnnH ♫ 19:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll also point out that even if BelindaGong and Freethinker99 are real people, they and Giovanni were still in violation of the WP:SOCK policy, which I strongly urge you to read. If a user registers a second account, and uses it to gain extra reverts and votes, the second account is a sockpuppet. But if the user gets friends and family members to join and to revert to his version, and vote for what he wants, then they are meatpuppets. Using meatpuppets is still a violation of the policy. Telling friends about Wikipedia is fine. Getting friends to join in order to give extra support (reverts, votes, and appearance of consensus on talk pages) is not considered acceptable. I'll be interested in your comments. AnnH ♫ 00:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to dignify your questions with a response but since you seem rather obsessed with this issue, I might as well. I am not a socket puppet nor do I know Giovanni in real life. I have reviewed the evidence against Giovanni, but I do not find it so terrible as you seem to make out. Fist of all its all rather dated--over 6 months old when he first joined. It seems he did invite a friend and his wife did edit and did not want to disclose it. I think that is his right to privacy and I respect that. Maybe they are deemed to be meat-puppets, but I think it’s terribly uncivil to refer to real people as meat-puppets. Surely they have their own minds and can make their own decisions. I see that Giovanni is often gang-up on by what looks like a closed-knit group of Christian editors who are dedicated to their POV, often with Giovanni being alone in trying to balance out articles on related subject matters. Its clear that part of the general tactics used against him is to paint any other editors who share his POV as socket-puppets. I note that I am now labeled with this myself, despite the fact that I have edited on various articles in which Giovanni has never touched, nor shown an interest in. So the "evidence" is rather selective. To me all this is merely a zealous adjenda you have to get silenceeditors who oppose your POV. That is what I think most people will be horrified by, including myself, as its antithetical to the interests and quality of this project.Professor33 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

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)

I hope you follow your own advice!Professor33 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

wow

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}}

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the alleged "similar linguistic errors?" If there is any truth to this, let us look at all the other editors to see how many more fit in such a criteria. Doing so will not doubt show how utterly baseless and unjust it is as a method to ban editors. I wonder, are they at least very rare errors? This will make for quite interesting story: "linguistic errors to avoid lest you be banned forever from Wikipedia (enforcement selective pending determination of your POV)!" The fact that such "evidence" must be resorted to, even secret evidence (where is it?)--despite evidence to the contrary, is indicative of the bogus nature of this sham case against me. I intend to show the world so that you can be properly shamed for this persecution on Wikipedia. Its stinks of corruption of the project.

Just for starters, why don't we have an admin review this who does not share the same POV as AnnH/Str1977 who are involved in pushing their conservative religiously motivated POV on articles and who are in an edito conflict with me and others like Giovanni? Otherwise, it matters little that an admin making the block is not directly involved in the content dispute if they may simply use a proxy admin with the same POV to state a denial of my request to be unblocked. That this is not the case makes clear the logical suspect in terms of motivation and bias for the denial. I'm confident many more will be equally digusted that this abusive tactic is being used to silence the voice of the secular humanist left from articles dominated by religious administrators and editors. I will go through the proper channels first before I take this matter outside of the Wikipedia process. Lets see how the community responds and addressses an injustice. Professor33 19:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

{{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)

I see you completely ignored my points. How interesting. To state again, why don't we have an admin review this who does not share the same POV as AnnH/Str1977, who are both involved in pushing their conservative religiously motivated POV on articles and who are in an edit conflict with me, which promted this action? Are you the ONLY one who can deny my request? Now you threaten not to allow me to speak even in my own defense on my own talk page? It just doesnt get better! If you think my point is not valid then you must disagree with the principal of an accepted rule on Wikipedia about admins not taking action who are involed in the edit conflict, for it matters little if an making the block is not directly involved in the content dispute if they may simply use a proxy admin who shares the same POV to issue a denial of my request to be unblocked. That this is not the case makes clear the logical suspect in terms of motivation and bias for the denial. I'm confident many more will be equally digusted that this abusive tactic is being used to silence the voice of the secular humanist left from articles dominated by religious administrators and editors. I will go through the proper channels first before I take this matter outside of the Wikipedia process. Lets see how the community responds and addressses an injustice. It seems you will respond by completely ignoring my request, refusing to provide evidence, and finally you will silence my ability to speak here. I think this will end my working within the system, since I will be silence in all manner exepty by e-mail. I will send one email to each admin and wait for response before I take the next steps.Professor33 20:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you edit while blocked I will immidiately revert your edits and block the account/IP address from which you are editing. Such is inline with WP:BLOCK before you go on about my censorship/admin abuse/complete incompetence etc. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense. If I edit when im blocked? How can I edit when Im blocked--except to my own user page?! Are you saying that you will revert what I write here? I thought you said you would block me from communicating all together on my own page? I guess that is a logical next step to silence those who speak out against a gross mischarage of justice. I'm still waiting to see this so-called "evidence." What a crock!Professor33 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You will see none of the evidence, so as to not alert you how to avoid detection. Administrators are welcome to email me or Musical Linguist to ask for the evidence. I have now spent enough time dealing with you. I will not reply to further comments unless there's a point to them. Have fun. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How nice! Secret evidence held against me as the basis for my ban, yet I am not allowed to even examin the so-called evidence so that I may prepare a defense? Talk about injustice on top of injustice! This only gets more interestings as it goes on. You dont have to contact me but you will be hearing from me along with the other admins who perpetrate this injustice in the name of bigotry and intolerance.

Concering my concern regardng your bias and my suggestion that you denial by itself denied I read on your talk page/request for admin editors who opposed you and who described you as "A direputable editor who has made freinds with the "christian" cabal. Are you saying you are not a Christian? From what I read you go to Christian school and you are "friends with the Christian cabal." No doubt this is true.Professor33 20:39, 29 June

{{unblock}}

• Request denied. Page now protected. I did warn you. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 20:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• As I pointed out, I banned you with no such secret evidence. Here is the documentation and submission for review by other admins. Hard to argue that I'm this "conspiracy". Wikibofh_(talk) 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

For information

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.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bhadani&diff=prev&oldid=61564092 --Bhadani 17:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bhandani. I appreicate your heartfelt comments. It's clear there are both good and bad among administrators. As one admin told me via e-mail, Wikipedia has problems caused by some bad admins who ruin it for the rest of us. It requires the good ones to be willing to fight the bad ones, I think, in order for good to prevail. Best regards. Professor33 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

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)

You are so generous! Do I get a last supper, too?Professor33 19:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

prognostication?

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)

You may indeed be able to edit under a new account now. I suggest trying it. If you get caught up in an autoblock, retry in 24 hours. I also suggest you stay away from areas User:Giovanni33 is interested in to avoid getting caught up in this situation once again. I still think you're a sockpuppet, but I can attempting to assume good faith and compromise with you. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if someone who is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet creates another account, that will be a further sockpuppet account, and will be blockable. Administrators are still looking into the case, and the block is being discussed at WP:AN. If it's accepted that you're not a puppet, you'll be unblocked. If the consensus is that you are, you won't be. You weren't blocked for having an inappropriate username, in which case you could register a new account. 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 behavioural similarites to Giovanni. Apart from the revert your account made shortly after Giovanni33 was blocked for 3RR (which many admins believe to have come from Giovanni or from an account controlled by him), there are indications that Giovanni has edited outside his own talk page since being blocked, and that's completely unacceptable. AnnH ♫ 22:52, 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?" 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.207.47.40.19 00:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)