User talk:NPOV77

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I'm relatively new but I've been reading a lot in and never start to edit before I know that an article really needs a NPOV defense.

I made a single edit, and I've been blocked with a false accusation by Musical Linguist: "You were blocked by Musical Linguist The reason given for NPOV77's block is: "Sockpuppet". (see our blocking policy).

This is a clear abuse of admin powers, since she is in a POV disput and uses her status as an admin to block me, without even a notice or inquiry. Simply because I see her POV pushing and wanted to step in to help. I am NOT a socketpuppet, and even if I were, this is no reason to BLOCK ME. Socketpuppetry, as long as I don't violate any rules, it LEGAL. You blocking me when you are a party to the POV dispute with me, is a clear abuse of your status as an admin. I will seek to have your admin status removed. NPOV77 20:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me make certain I understand correctly - you made one edit, which was not very newbie-like, reflecting the edits of another editor known for sockpuppetry to fake consensus, and now you're wiki-lawyering as an attempt to... um, what? Get people to believe you're not disruptive?

Excuse me while I keep a straight face, this will take effort. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please excuse your rudeness KillerChihuaua. Even if NPOV77 is a sockepuppet of someone else--SO WHAT? That is not wrong to have socketpuppet. I read the rules. The only reason why NPOV77 should be blocked was if he were a socketpuppet of someone who was blocked, and was using that to get around the block. If were familiar with how things are done with Christian Cabal then you would understand why someone would want to create a sock to go against the Christian POV. This is a good reason to create socks--so their main account is kept anonymous from the wikistalking and other harassment that is sure to follow. So, even IF NPOV77 was a socket, without a usercheck his being blocked (indefinitely) by the POV pushing admin who was in a POV dispute is an abuse of the admin possition. I will join NPOV77 to see that this case gets reviewed. Also, since when it making one edit--even a rv--grounds to lable this editor as distruptive? You will have to do better than that. Excuse me while I keep a staight face, this will take effort. RTS 16:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puppetry and reversion

Your recent edit summary "rv No RTS is right--there is no consensus to move to bottom as of yet. Also, you reverted POV content, which is why I decided to intervene. I am aware of the rules so I have 2 rvts left" suggests to me that you may not fully understand the three-revert rule, which says in part

This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.

Since you mention sock-puppets, the page about the 3RR goes on to say,

Using sockpuppets (multiple accounts) to avoid this limit is a violation of WP:SOCK, and the policy specifically does not apply to groups. Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two (or more) competing versions is correct.

I note also that while we should all assume good faith, we are not required to feign credulity. I do not believe you are acting independently of Giovanni33 (talk • contribs). Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I don't know if you really believe what you claim to believe, or you are just jumping on the bandwaggon intiated by MusicalLinguist (will it ever stop?), but you are wrong. I was away and am just now am coming back to read what amounts to more personal attacks against me.

Why do you think this user is connected to me? I looked at the history of the Christianity article and my edits and his are very different. Granted, IMHO his edits are much better than what stands now (which is just back to what it was before any of my changes--all my contributions have been stripped away, it seems--and without consensus), but his edits are missing many things that I incorporated. Also, the language is different, my quotes are removed, etc. It seems to be more refined and trimmed down. Acceptable but not what I wanted. Still, just because an editor happens not to follow a traditional Christian POV, is that reason to block him, bann him, and then accuse him of being connected to me? I'd really like to see an honest explanation for this. What really puzzles me is what did he do to get banned? And by MusicalLinguist, no less? This seems a rather serious violation of standard procedure. I would like to see the theory behind this course of action. Giovanni33 08:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

HI NPOV77. When I saw you appear after I was blocked I was sure they would accuse you of being my socketpuppet. Much to my suprise you are accused of being Giovanni33's socket!! They must really hate Giovanni to keep smearing his name like this. I guess they go after him since he has been their biggest ideological threat to the dominated Christian POV. I also noticed that my version that you supported was NOT Giovanni33's version. It's interesting that they can ignore this fact, go way in the past to dig up Giovani's history (repeating their version of events), in order to try to paint Giovanni33 in this negative manner. Its the repetition propaganda effect: keep repeating something over and over at every chance you get, and sooner or later enough people will start to believe it. RTS 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, notice above the best Tom Harrison can do is talk about using socketpuppets to avoid the 3RR limit, yet this has nothing to do with you since you only made a single revert, which is much better than the other side has been doing. I note that even MusicalLinguist is complaining that she she only gets 3reverts per day, and how this is unfair. I guess limiting you to only one revert make it more fair--for her? RTS 17:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to try and convince the administrators that you're not a sockpuppet, though it may be a little difficult since your very first edit (apart from one each to your userpage and talk page) was a revert to the version of someone known to have used sockpuppets in the past in order to get extra votes and extra reverts. Genuine newcomers don't start by reverting: they usually don't even know how to revert. Feel free to send me an e-mail. And by the way, I sought advice from other admins after I blocked you, which took up quite a lot of time, and there were Wikipedia problems with editing last night. By the time I came back to your talk page, I saw that another admin had said exactly what I would have said. AnnH ♫ 12:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Even with your tightly organized Christian posse, you face risks in being exposed. Its a double edge sword. What NPOV77 should do is use the formal dispute mechanisms, and then seek arbitration. Since you banned him, he can hardly do that unless he creates a socketpuppet for this purpose (ironic that in the name of fighting socketpuppet, you force their creation to seek redress.)RTS 17:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)