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 &mdash; 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. He tried to get rid of the evidence, 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 &mdash; 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.


 * 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)

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


 * 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?" If the sun comes up in the morning often enough then is it really "unexected" when it does so again? And is the fact of something happening in an expected manner or unexpected manner really a relevant factor? For it begs the question: expected or unexpected to whom? Do you think we all have the same kinds of expectations? I dare say not. To continue, your other reason for the block is showing "extraordinary confidence for a newcomer." I didn't know that was against the rules, either. In fact, is not the advise for new comers to Be bold?" Is not being bold showing confidence? Are we to be bold in a non-confident manner to abide by the non-confidence requirement rule that I must have missed reading somewhere? To continue, I am also blocked for being, "familiar with the background of some disputes." This must be a character fault of mine for as a general rule I do not enter into disputes without first become familiar with the disputes. If this were against the rule, it would be strange indeed. Is there a requirement that an editor must be ignorant of a dispute before entering into it? I must admit that does seem to prevail here to a large degree. I dare say this is a decidedly bad thing. Only if more editors were to be more familiar with the background of disputes before entering into them! As I have explained, I became interested in jumping into the edit process after lurking for some time. In particular I was interested in reading about events on other websites about alleged abuse and POV pushing by a "Christian Cabal." There are a few and they all name you by name MusicalLinguist. Therefore it’s hard to believe that your "spin" is merely coincidental but part and parcel of the real agenda I believe is at play here. This leads us directly into your last reason for my ban: Your assertion of "linguistic evidence," for which you describe yourself as having the ability to discern. If there is evidence then present it. If not, then it’s only an empty claim. Evidence must be looked at esp. by those who it is to be used again. It must be determined if the evidence supports the claim, and if so, does the evidence prove it? Since you do not have a voice recording to analyze respective voices, which in forensic linguistics is considered mostly reliable, I take it you are using written text. This is not reliable. Those who claim to be "forensic linguistics" push their own POV about their abilities, as it’s a profit driven industry, whose claims are often exaggerated. While I have other interests, such as my below edits indicate (which, as far as I know, Giovanni has never edited)

22:56, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Effects of global warming (→Methane release from hydrates) 21:56, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Effects of global warming (→Methane release from hydrates) 21:52, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Effects of global warming (→Methane release from hydrates) 21:45, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Methane?) 21:39, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Methane?) 20:16, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Article overstates the case) 19:33, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→Methane?=) 19:32, 21 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Global warming (→About Scientific Concensus)

I wanted to try my hand at joining with an underdog against what I perceived as bullying. Giovanni often is alone on articles dominated by yourself and like-minded editors. I note he has even been issued an award by another editor for this very reason. I am not alone in recognizing this fact. The articles he tries to fix are in poor shape. I did not know it was against the rules to join with the purpose of aiding in such a good cause. I understand the appearance of being a socket puppet, but I figured this suspicion would have to be proved before punitive actions were taken. Actually, I've seen actions taken under the pretext of 'puppetry,' without proof and on very weak evidence, before. However, I do not think this is policy or correct. I feel it’s a grave injustice and a thin veil to exclude those editors who do choose to make it their task to counter systematic bias on contentious articles. I admire that. This is why I joined to aid Giovanni in a number of articles that he was facing the typical "gang" of editors who keep articles biased in one direction. He has no control over me, anymore than editors who agree with your POV have control over you. It’s clear this is about what POV's are allowed and what POV are not allowed. That to have a POV that supports Giovanni in his cause to counter bias in accordance with the NPOV policy, results in such an editor being banned is a corruption and abuse of power. The real issue here is politics, not policy. In fact, politics is placed before policy because to ban someone based on speculation and suspicion without proof relies on violating the policy of assuming good faith.

As I said, some time ago I started to follow with interest some of the going-on’s. I ran into a few critical sites of Wikipedia. They each alleged abuse with the process. I took these with grains of salt, however one topic--the alleged "Christian Cabal," which was said to exist around several article of related religious topics, dominated by interested Christian editors and admins with a strong POV in a close-knit relationship. I looked into this with some interest, on and off for several months. These sites document some of these things I have seen. It was posted on a blog I have frequented on religious issues in the formation bonding social capital. Accusing new editors who show a humanist/atheist POV, and naturally, side with Giovanni who expresses this POV, are banned. I wondered why is Giovanni not banned, also? I suppose it’s a question of maintaining dominance and additional editors can upset that. In all fairness, sometimes there are mistakes on the part of the banned editors themselves, which are gladly seized on, however, there is a double-standard, selective evidence, non equal enforcement of the rules, shifting arguments in an opportunist manner, i.e., when facts are presented which contradict the theories used to support actions against editors such as myself, they remained silent, and apply arguments in a contradictory and inconsistent manner. This proves to me a lack of honesty and, once again, the reality of old fashion politics at the center of this. I can explain this but it would require several more paragraphs, but is evidence if anyone is following this closely.

The one thing I do confess to is that I did follow Giovanni33 to articles to test out my theory: If I supported him, would something bad happen to me? Sadly it has. I just did not think I'd get banned indefinitely, given my contributions to other articles and having established myself as a legitimate editor. But because of coming into conflict with the “Christian cabal”, I am "no longer welcome at Wikipedia." This is a loss for Wikipedia but it did prove my point. I hope it leads to corrective action in the future.Professor33 00:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr33, let me try explain the contradiction you noticed:
 * You asked when the Professor account will be unblocked. That depends on whether the admins reviewing the block, consider you to be a puppet or not. If they do consider the puppet, the block will remain indefinitely. If they judge you not to be a puppet, they will lift the block.
 * And when is this supposed to happen? How long does it take? When is a decision made? How long do I have to wait?
 * Maybe tomorrow, maybe never. Right now the verdict stands. Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked whether you are allowed to register a new account. Again, that depends on your acknowledged status as a puppet or not. According to the rules, laid down by Ann above, a puppet registering under a new account may be blocked on sight as well, as (so the reasoning) that person already has an account (in your it case, the Gio account). Now, even if the admins do judge you to be a puppet and do not lift the block, you may register a new account. That might be bending the rules but unless you, under the new account, repeat the actions that resulted in your being caught as a puppet of Gio (and these are the things Deskana mentioned) this bending will have no consequences.
 * So its ok to break the rules as long as one does not get caught? The aim here is not to support the POV on articles that Gio is making a case, esp. if he needs help. So as long as his POV is defeated, that is what counts?
 * No, but assuming you are indeed, well not innocent, since you meant to test the system, but if you are indeed not a puppet for Gio and if this is not recognised by the admins, this is the way out for you. Of course, if you are a puppet, you will eventually be caught again. Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, when you will you be able to edit again? If you are a puppet of Gio (of which I am quite convince) you just have to wait until Gio's block expires. Str1977
 * But what if I'm not a puppet of Gio, what is the answer then? Do I not have to wait until his block expires in that case? How do I know when his block expires?
 * That's what the following paragraphs explain. And you can always ask Gio by sending him an e-mail. From you to you, I guess. Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How long should you wait? You have been blocked and you may hope that your appeal gets you unblocked, but as in any case, the verdict reached is in effect and is expected to remain in effect until a contradictory decision is reached. So, I wouldn't count on being unblocked!
 * I'm unlcear as to the requirments for a decision one way or another. How many admins does it take for a quorum to exist and a consensus among such a minimum to be valid?


 * Certainly your appeal will not be dealt with by admins of your chosing. You will have to go through the normal process just like everybody else.
 * I dont expect it to be of admins of my chooosing. I do expect it to be of admins who have not previously been involved with conflicts with Gio or his POV which would bias them in this case.
 * But so you argued. And believe me, your unblocking could not be prevented by those involved in the conflict. Note however, that part of the conflict is the puppeteering going on here. Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Were you blocked because you came conflict with a alleged "Christian cabal"? No, you were blocked because you behaved as a puppet of Gio (that is what Deskana wrote above). If you are indeed a separate person who was only convinced by Gio to play his puppet but also have other interests on WP than just supporting Gio your situation is tragic. Tragic because your bad doings now prevent you from doing anything, including unobjectable things. If that is indeed so, my bending advice is your only way out. But don't think that you won't be caugh if you puppet again.
 * Yes but the so called "bending" of the rules is convenient since it says 'you can edit but don't express any POV that is in line with Gio's POV." That tells me I'm banned because of sharing a POV with Giovanni. You call it a 'puppet," but the truth is that I am no puppet.
 * Not at all, if you simply supported Gio, no one would or could harm you. But you acted as a puppet. Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You complain aboug not being "welcome" - Puppets are indeed not welcome on WP.
 * And I am no puppet. Yet, I'm still unwelcome.
 * Right now you are a convicted puppet and WP can only treat you according to the evidence. Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your say that "it did prove (your) point" - what is your point? That rules are enforced on WP? If your behave like a puppet, you are a puppet, and you will be blocked as a puppet.Str1977 (smile back) 12:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that if someone supports Giovanni's POV in articles then they get target for elimination whatever the excuse may be, or however flimsy the standards of evidence.
 * No, if someone acts as if he were a puppet, he will raise suspicion. If there's also evidence for it, he will be blocked. This happened to you. Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: Isn't it funny that you, Professor33, are putting the same faulty argument as Giovanni33, that some admins should be excluded for not being "neutral" (which in your idiom means agreeing with the block)? Str1977 (smile back) 13:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything funny about it, nor do I think the argument is faulty.Professor33 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you know best. Str1977 (smile back) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! . You may smile back here! I will come to see... --Bhadani 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I would suggest you to please try to get your this account unblocked. Do not be tempted to create another account and fall in the "trap" to be proved that you use sock-puppet or keep multiple accounts. May you succeeed in your endevor! I would like to share that my friend whose IP and User ID was blocked would have contributed ten times more than me!!!!!!!!!!!! But, wikipedia lost him on account of an administrative action which I know was absolutely wrong. How many such persons we may be losing? --Bhadani 17:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Bhadani. You are one of the good admins. And thank you for warning me of this "trap" they tried to lure me into. I shall follow your sage advice. I will say that its a pity that such a great project has to be ruined for so many people by these terrible, abusive practices by those who are supposed to be in service of the project. It disinclines me to want to volunteer any further when volunteers who offer their considerable expertise for free are treated in such an insulting manner. If this were a job, I'd resign.Professor33 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since everybody smiles around these places, I cannot hold aloof. Professor, I am also sorry that there are abusive practices on Wikipedia, if you know what I mean. Str1977 (smile back) 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the sincereity of your apology manifested with concrete actions urging the removal of this unjust bann, which is the cumlination and concentration of the the worst of the abusive practices. So far you have ony acted as its cheerleader. Professor33 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear GProfessor, you misunderstand me. I didn't apologize and I have nothing to apologize for to you! However, if you want to apologize for the abusive practices, then go ahead. Str1977 (smile back) 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You did apologize. You said, "I am sorry." That repentance is a good start. Now you must make good on your apology to me by following through with consistent statements and positive actions reflecting your alleged contrition. Its your actions that count and from what I've seen your latest actions prove you to be continuing the perpetuation of these very abusive practices on a number of user's talk pages. For this I must condemn you despite your professed apology to me.Professor33 18:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I repent of not thinking very highly of you. (BTW, your wittiness sounds remarkably Gio-ish to me, hehe!) You should increase your knowledge of the English language: Sorry denotes feeling sorrow about something - it doesn't necessarily denote an apology or repentence. "I am sorry to hear your husband died." is not answered by "Why, did you kill him?" However, I will follow this ip with a positive action, namely leaving this page, as it feels like the last page of Animal farm. Since Napoleon is Stalin and not Mao, you will have no love lost for him, especially since he was a Communist. Hehe! Str1977 (smile back) 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems you have fun playing cute games at others expense. Since you apologized specifically for abuse, and that absuse is clearly estabalished, as I and other editors are among its victims, and you are among the perpetrators, it logically follows that your apology was of your own actions towards me. My English is just fine. Too bad your not too serious with your apology, not that I would accept it without some corresponding actions. We are all equal but some are clearly more equal than others. Have a good day, Mr. Napoleon.Professor33 22:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that I reflect on it, Str1977 is correct to bring up Animal Farm in this context. The injustices here mirrors the kind of group dyanmic despotism that is classic of totalitarianism. Those with "thought crimes" and those cast as "outsiders" are relagated to the bullying tactics by those in the "in-power," a group who serves each others duplicities with unabashed hypocracy. There are some good administrators here but they are clearly not in charge, or willing to break rank for fear of being targets themselves. The more I look at Wikipedia the more I can see how these rogue elements running roughshod over policy and precedure are corrupting the potencial of this probject. Its petty gangsterism at its worst, infecting the best of places. Someone needs to stand up and say out loud that the emperor has no clothes!Professor33 23:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hi, Professor. When I originally asked you if you had any connection to Giovanni33, you ignored my question until you had been blocked, while continuing to act as a Giovanni puppet. You finally stated explicitly both that you are not Giovanni33 and that you do not know him. Now, there is a lot of evidence linking you to him, but there's also evidence linking you to HK30 (who is also linked by evidence to Giovanni), so I'm going to ask you directly: Thanks. AnnH ♫ 23:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you HK30?
 * Do you know HK30?

A firm negative to both questions--as far as I know. Since these editors are confidencial and using anonymous nicks, so would I know if i knew them or not? I suppose it is possible but very unlikely. Maybe we know each other without knowing it? I hope my answer is very useful to you and clears up your confusions. Does this mean now you believe me? If not what is the motivation in asking this particular question? Btw, did you know there is evidence linking me to you? I've seen it! So I ask you: Are you me? Do you know me? Careful in a totalitarian society there is no 1st Amend. rights such as freedom of association. Knowing the wrong persion is a wiki-crime under wiki-fascism.Professor33 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you've answered my questions, I'll answer yours, though I doubt if you were seriously looking for answers. I'm not particularly anxious to keep posting on the talk page of a blocked user who holds me responsible for his block, because, regardless of my intentions, it will probably come across as taunting. But you've asked, so I'll answer. Does your answer mean that I now believe you? I'm afraid not. We tried to assume good faith when Giovanni and Belinda pretended not to know each other, and then when Freethinker99 pretended to be a newcomer who just happened to have found that page. Eventually good faith can get a bit dried up. My motive in asking the question? If you had answered yes, it might have explained things that can't otherwise be explained. By the way, you state above that forensic linguistics is not admissible in the court of law. In fact, evidence from forensic linguists has been accepted in court in Australia, Britain, and the United States. Did I know there was evidence linking you to me? I hadn't thought about it, but as a linguist, I know it's possible. I know the level of overlap that would be normal, the level that would raise suspicions, and the level that would remove all doubt. Am I you? No. Do I know you? Not in real life, but I believe I've known you, under different identities, on the pages of Wikipedia, since the end of January. AnnH ♫</b> 01:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I look at things differently. Assuming good faith does not dry up. If it is dry, fill the well up again. Each context must be looked at de novo as it deserves a unique look without having the past predjuice one. Giovanni33 did make some mistakes, no doubt but he has already come clean and acknowleged that. This seems to be a case of taking advantage of this history in order to use it as an excuse to violate this important rule. I don't accept that as it does more harm than whatever good it may do. The point at whch its really "dried up' is the point at whch they are no longer welcome or part of the community anymore. As long as they are still basically a co-woker, one must assume good faith equally for each set of circumstances. I am a case in point. Forensic Linguistics is not admissible in the form that you have suggested it. Linguistics is a broad area and so are valid forensic applications of it. Some are considered reliable and court worthy, others (the kind your using here) are not. I'd be surprised if you can show me a case here it has been accepted. I"m talking about showing the text alone between differerent authors to determine they are the same. Its not reliable for good reason. About not knowing me how can you be so sure? I could be one of your students, no? Its good to have doubt. Doubt is healthy. Professor33 20:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I seem to have missed your statement that the kind of forensic linguistic that I use is not accepted in court. It's precisely in the form that I have suggested that forensic linguistics has been admitted in court. The trial of the Unabomber is one case. Another is that of an Australian woman who disappeared some years ago, and apparently left a "farewell letter". Forensic linguists compared the letter with samples of text known to have been written by her and samples of text known to have been written by her husband &mdash; and determined that it was, in fact, the husband who had written the farewell letter. The husband finally confessed that he had killed his wife and that he had written that letter. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 11:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

unresolved question
I'd very much like to edit again but am unsure how to proceed. Some tell me to stay here and convince others to unblock me. If this is the course to take then please tell me how I should proceed. Otherwise, it's just a waiting game and I see no progress. If I am to follow the advice of others, by creating a new account and staying away from articles Giovanni edits so as to not be seen as a "puppet" anymore, then I would like to do so knowing it is not a trap to confirm socket-puppetry. The more fair minded aministrators have warned me not to take this route as its a trap. Its really shocking to see that volunteers are treated this way, including setting up traps by giving advice that are aimed at not helping you but banning you (or justifying their mistaken ban, in my case). That is a strange one. So, I ask for those that do advice this course of action: If I do edit under a new user name would you give me some assurance that if I did do so, and stayed away from articles that Giovanni is involved with, that I will be left to edit legally, and not fall into any kind of trap? Much regards!Professor33 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes start over. We don't try to hunt sockpuppets down.  We get suspicious when we see the same stuff from a new account.  My recommendations:
 * Leave everything Gio and Professor related (Christianity, Adolph Hitler and Global warming seem like good candidates for avoidance) alone.
 * Make the username something with no ties.
 * Stay away from other users that have been accused of sockpuppetry and stay away from accounts that you believe have suffered the same injustices you have. They can fight their own battles.


 * In summary, just try to improve articles, use the talk pages and don't get caught up in the politics/bureacracy. That's just BS we deal with trying to do the other stuff.  I personally have no axe to grind with you if you're not Gio, and if you are, that will get dealt with in time.  Wikibofh(talk) 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the straight forward answer, Wikibofh. That is what I was thinking of doing but I wanted assurance that I, if I followed the above recommendations, I won't be "hunted down."I felt that I surely would hunted for, even if not found. But if anyone does that, would such an action be a violation of some policy that I could user in my defense (no hunting down users). If so, I will edit in articles only after checking to make sure that Giovanni has never edited before. But, if he should show up, should I vacate and leave to another article? He won't know who I am, ofcourse, and neither will others. But, I suppose that we may be on the same side given we do seem to share the same POV. From the above, I would gather I should quickly leave? And would the same go for any other editors who might share the same POV with me/Giovanni? What if there are real Giovani socketpuppets and they are checked along with me, discovering the connection to this account? As you see, things things do worry me esp. when we have administrators who are agressively going after Giovanni (and I guess those who share his POV). I wish there was a procedure to establish my own identity, such as ISP records, etc. If Giovanni would also agree, could this be a way to settle the matter? Thank you. Professor33 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I noticed on my talk page notice that it says I have been banned for being a puppet,  "and for vandalism." But, I've never vandalized.Professor33 23:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A fair point. In fact, that notice is a template, so it sometimes may not be completely accurate for the user it's sent to. I have edited it to remove the unjust accusation. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 23:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ann. That is very kind of you.Professor33 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to stay away from the traditional Christianity stomping grounds. If Gio shows up where your new identity is with no previous edits there and suddenly takes your side that will look bad.  If you cross paths, no biggie.  Avoid appearances of sockpuppetry and no such accusations will be leveled.  I don't mean to imply that you must avoid it like the plague, but use common sense.  As for establishing identity, I understand your desire, but it's just not worth it here for you or us, so just move on.  Wikibofh(talk) 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, with permission I have started to edit away with my valid socketpuppet. So far so good. Should I state what my new account is so that others can see that my edits and contributions have been rather good and substancial and nothing related to Giovanni's topics, or do I have to keep it secret? Professor33 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not in a position to answer that, as it would only be my opinion; but my opinion is that it's nobody's business what user name you are using now. If you refrain from following Giovanni around to support him and revert for him and get involved in arguments he's having at other people's talk pages, then the new account will not be behaving as a puppet, so everything should be fine. (And just to clarify, that does not mean that I believe that you really have no connection to him; it's just general advice, unrelated to a particular situation.) I'm removing the "also" from the notice at the top of your page. Since I removed the first reference to "vandalism", the "also" doesn't make sense. Good luck with your new account. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd keep it to myself. :)  Good luck.  Wikibofh(talk) 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks for letting me edit again (or giving me a way to). I think I'll keep it to myself--at least for now. Maybe after I get a few thousand edits under my belt i'll come out of the closet as the Professor. Then maybe this account will then be unbanned :)Professor33 22:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm currently in an edit war on a controverial subject. Im guessing I should walk away so as not to draw attention to myself? I'm thinking that I may not be seen as acting like a bran new user, and so I may be suspected as a socketpuppet of someone else on the article. If there is a user check and they find out that I am not related to anyone involved in that article (but I am the same IP as this account)--would that be a problem? Should I just walk away and not involve myself in any types of article content disputes? Professor33 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just stay away from edit wars. Doesn't matter if you're concerned about sock checks or not.  It does look suspicious when new users know too much about policy, but that's irrelevant, just stay out of them.  Limit yourself to two reverts and go find some other interesting articles.  You'll be suprised at what you can find that is fascinating that you have no vested interest in.  Wikibofh(talk) 04:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I did already. It occurs to me, though, that in order to maintain the quality and accuracy of articles that one has effected, it requires one to, in a sense, "guard it," or defend it, or it may simply have been for naught. But, if one does do this, it's "edit warring." So, it seems to me some "edit warring" is good. Maybe leave it on the talk page and limit oneself to no more than 2 reverts a day? Of course, for now I'll just walk away, as you suggest, but as a general solution to a desire to see that the improvements to an article one makes are maintained, one has to engage in some conflict, no? Everyone else seem to do it just that. The ones who walk away get their contributions take off by those who stick around and fight it out. If the good people do the walking away and only the bad ones stay and fight, then that means the artcile will suffer as a result, no? Professor33 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying two points for people who may read this page
Just to clear up two things concerning the blocking of this account, and the subsequence appearance and blocking of NeoOne. The Professor33 account wrote (in the section above this one): "If I do edit under a new user name would you give me some assurance that if I did do so, and stayed away from articles that Giovanni is involved with, that I will be left to edit legally, and not fall into any kind of trap?" The NeoOne account's first article edit was to Christianity, which I would say is the main article that Giovanni has edited. NeoOne was shown by IP evidence to be Professor33, and later, Professor33, NeoOne, and CleanSocks were all confirmed by Checkuser to be Giovanni33.

The other thing I want to clarify relates to comments made by admins Kelly Martin and Linuxbeak. Kelly Martin (who has checkuser access) said that she had reviewed checkuser evidence, and did not believe there was any sockpuppetry going on. She said that the secondary evidence was also weak. Linuxbeak answered an e-mail to Professor33 telling him: "I would like to note that a "CheckUser" has been performed on both your account and Giovanni33's account. The results were not similar at all, so there is very little "solid" evidence that you and Giovanni are one in the same." The letter, along with Kelly Martin's comment, is posted here, where Linuxbeak also says that the linguistic evidence is "sketchy at best".

Reference to these comments has been made elsewhere, to give the impression that Linuxbeak and Kelly Martin disagreed with the puppetry accusation after having seen all the evidence. First of all, a subsequent usercheck has confirmed that Professor33 is a Giovanni33 puppet (along with two other recent ones), so that is now settled. Secondly, Linuxbeak did not carry out the usercheck as he does not have usercheck access. A check was carried out by Kelly Martin, who (going by the IP evidence available at the end of June) did not say "not similar at all", but merely that she did not believe there was any sockpuppetry going on, and that the "secondary evidence [was] also weak". It seems that Linuxbeak took Kelly Martin's statement that she did not believe that Professor was a Giovanni puppet to mean that the "results were not similar at all". Thirdly, it is doubtful whether Kelly Martin or Linuxbeak had any prior knowledge of the Giovanni's history of puppetry. Fourthly, Kelly's comment about the "secondary" evidence referred to such things as the similarity of usernames, and the fact that Professor reverted to Giovanni's version after Giovanni had been blocked for 3RR. She had not seen any of the linguistic evidence, and neither had Linuxbeak, at the time they made those comments, though a full report has subsequently been sent to them. There is no administrator who, having seen the full report, said either in a private e-mail or publicly on Wikipedia that he or she was not convinced or that the evidence was not compelling.

As the connection between Professor33 and Giovanni33 has now been established by IP evidence (as well as by linguistic and other means), it is unlikely that the Professor33 account will try to reply. However, I am placing this statement here, for the record, in case other people may be led to believe that this block was carried out on very flimsy evidence. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)