Talk:Christianity/Archive 15

message: Let's agree to stop the comstant reverting.  Mika, Freethinker, Gio, etc. (whether it's all one person or several)...can you please discuss your ideas here and gain a consensus before reverting or adding what is obviously disputed material?  If you can agree, we can get this page unlocked.  KHM03 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked for a checkuser; I would prefer that the page stay locked until we get an answer back on that. Tom Harrison Talk 19:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlocked? 

message: Hi all,
I am new here and am trying to follow the discussion in this article.  However to do so requires a little clarification.  Would someone please tell me: 1.)  Who is this Giovanni and what did he do?  2.) What is a sock puppet besides what I use to entertain my nephews? Christian_Historybuff aka Steve Christian Historybuff
Hello, and welcome. Here's the page about sockpuppets on Wikipedia. As to who Giovanni33 is, that's a more difficult question. You can conveniently sign your name with a shortcut, ~~~~. This produces: Tom Harrison Talk 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's technically possible, but we don't do that except in extreme cases where there might otherwise be legal problems. It wouldn't be appropriate in this case. Tom Harrison Talk 21:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting parts of the article history (which only administrators can do) is generally thought of as a fairly extreme measure. The article history is a record of contributors, and we do want to make sure that everyone is properly credited; even editors whose editing behaviour is... challenging... should still credit for their contributions. We make exceptions, but, all told, it is a lot simpler to revert a revert than it is to eliminate every instance of the version being reverted to. We have deliberately chosen to always err on the side of assuming good faith, and there are many, many ways in which this philosophy leads us to dealing with annoyances in a less than perfectly efficient way. Hope that answers your question. Jkelly 21:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications 

message: Any reason why I can't lift protection on this article?--MONGO 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here.  KHM03 01:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a reason. The blocks placed on Giovanni33, BelindaGong, and Freethinker99 exire in about one hour from now, so that means that Giovanni gets another nine reverts in the next twenty-four hours. An excellent reason not to unprotect. AnnH (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, so are you admitting here that it is permissable that myself, Belinda, and Freethinker, all are allowed up to 3 reverts each? Wow, thanks for the change in policy. I'm sure Belinda (not sure if I can convince Freethinker to join again), will be happy to hear that. Thanks. Giovanni33 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am definitely not saying that you and Belinda (if you really are two people) are allowed to have three reverts each. I was saying that given your track record, it was quite likely that you'd take three (or more) reverts each. I was referring merely to the technical possibility of doing so once the your blocks had been lifted and the page unprotected. AnnH (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, a technical possibility is what you meant (although you did say "that means that Giovanni gets another nine reverts.). As a linguist I'm sure you can see what is being communicated is not true: No, I don't get another 9 reverts. Sure, anyone can violate the policy and get blocked but that is true for everyone so its not a logical point. Don't we all have the technical ability to revert as much as we want from our own IP address (of course we will be blocked as a consequence)? The fact is, as you well know, that Belinda, Freethinker, and myself, are all counted as one person, so if any one of us has a cumulative total of over 3 reverts we all get blocked. Therefore how does the clarification of point above make any sense? Its not logical. Giovanni33 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem...I protected it without anyone asking me to do so, or a request to do so to my knowledge. I'm not a big fan of page protection, but just wanted to make it clear that I wanted everyone to not feel as though I had acted unilaterally by protecting the page. I am also the blocking admin of the "editors" in question, so I also wanted to ensure all my bases are covered.--MONGO 01:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Bottom line: The article has become a royal mess and needs trimming and care.  We need to arrive at some kind of understanding. KHM03 03:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: According to CheckUser , MikaM  and Kecik are not the same user, and neither one is Giovanni33. Tom Harrison Talk 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jus so everyone knows...all the checkuser proves is that they are different IP's. Checkuser is not needed if other evidence of sockpuppetry are apparent.--MONGO 02:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CheckUser