Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tommstein (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 22 December 2005 (→Apologies to all concerned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Retcon (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to User:Tommstein/Retcon-Missionary Sockpuppet Evidence for evidence. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Introduction

Hello to all. I'll entertain any input, commendation, commentary, critique on this page. Please follow proper rules of decorum, doing such will add to meaninful dialogue between you and I. Thx. Missionary 05:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Missionary. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I've noticed you've started editing some of the articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, which is great; the more the better!

Something to keep in mind editing is that if you're adding the POV of a particular group, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, you need to attribute the POV as well as cite a source. If you find existing unsourced material in an article, don't immediately delete because it is unsourced or unattributed. First, see if you can find a source for the statement, either by researching yourself, or by mentioning it on the talk page so that other editors can help out.

In addition, feel free to add yourself as a participant in the WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses and read through the info on the project page. Happy editing! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, thank you for the invitation to the group. I agree that citing a source for all statements is in keeping with POV, I've added a proponent source as well as link to the section of the article in question. My question however was the statement opposing shunning did not have a source, I was simply following the precedent set. In the future, if you would also be so kind as to fyi me here before removing my added material in case it isn't cited, and I'll be sure to research it asap and remove if unsupported. Thx. Missionary 08:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you've joined the project. I think perhaps you missed the point of my comment. Much of Misplaced Pages is unsourced, but editors are not encouraged to simply delete unsourced statements. The idea is to find sources, and if that fails, then remove. On the other hand, when adding material, you shouldn't do so without having your source lined up, so other users don't need to question it. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I do understand that when adding material, source material should be lined up. My question would be why the statement in oppositive to disfellowshipping wasn't provided with source material when it was first entered into the article? I'm sure you understand my confusion as I was simply adding a counterargument without source as the precedent had already been set in the paragraph. In any event, we've both added our source material and future additions will be sure to include sources references to backup statements. Thx again. Missionary 11:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why no source when put in? Good question. But Misplaced Pages has only recently started to push for having sources for statements, so previously statements got in without sources. On the JW related pages, because of the high likelihood of controversy, it's especially important have sources for new statements, and to find sources for existing ones. Your help in that area would be much appreciated. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Missionary, from your contributions, it seems you joined Misplaced Pages just today. On page that has been around for a good amount of time, there are topics that have been discussed at length. As such, don't be surprised if some of your edits are reverted, because they may have already been discussed earlier.

Since you're new, I understand that you may not be aware of all WP policies and customs. Before inserting an NPOV notice, you need to discuss on the talk first. Since you haven't done this, I'll remove the NPOV for now, but if the discussion on the talk page makes it clear the consensus is a POV problem, feel free to put it back in. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I've included two instances in the talk section with some correlating quotations from Jimbo Wales. I think just some different phraseology will settle the problem. Missionary 11:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I'm with you that the current content needs work; my only concern was that NPOV tag shouldn't be added without discussion on the talk page first. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Helpful Tips from Unknown Party relating to NPOV

Hello friend, I rec'd your tips and thank you for both your compliments and critique. I as a general rule of thumb do not leave notes on my user talk unless they have a signature, and there was none. However, the wording you provided in those two instances does indeed provide me with some helpful guidelines, which I definitely appreciate. Thank you. Missionary 01:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome 2

Hi, Missionary. Glad to see you here. Tom Haws 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thx for the welcome Tom Missionary 19:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note to terminology "vandalism".

If vandalism is implied, please specify which specific instance there has been a "vandalized" article and how one poster's conduct deviates from another poster who performs the exact same style of edits. If no valid claims are rendered for consideration, any such notices will be removed from this talk log as meaningless clutter. Thx for your future consideration. Missionary 10:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

discussion group

The group is no more. Read about this on my talk page. - CobaltBlueTony 15:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a shame. Oh well. Missionary 01:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing Jehovah's Witnesses articles

Because of the volatile and tenacious nature of certain editors whose stated or subliminal goal is to detract from Jehovah's Witnesses at any and every opportunity, I am making it my goal to recommend to new and existing editors interested in JW articles to review the Misplaced Pages's policies:

• WP:NOR - no original research
• WP:V - verifiability
• WP:NPOV - Misplaced Pages: neutral point of view (this one is critical to JW pages edits especially)
• WP:CIV - Civility

We do have to keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not the proper forum for any form of proselytizing. This is an academic endeavor, and to make it worthwhile for Jehovah's Witnesses to contribute positively, abiding by the rules of the forum and sticking to the facts will help us not only keep these articles and the discussions behind them free from ineffective and off-topic banter, but present a respectable product that addresses all sides, but keeps them in perspective.

It is best to ignore insults and off-topic discussions, addressing only the pertinent points so as to reach a consensus regarding the content of these pages. If you must address them, it's best to simply cite the Misplaced Pages standards and redirect your focus to content and format. I hope my suggestions help. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Account deletion

Misplaced Pages accounts can't be deleted (see Misplaced Pages:Account deletion for the reasons). What can be done, if you are serious about wanting to stop contributing to Misplaced Pages, is to delete your user and talk pages (see here). I think it would be better for you to add {{deletebecause|the reason you need the page deleted}} (obviously, replacing "the reason..." with the actual reason), and then allow another admin to delete the pages, given my exchanges here. --ajn (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason he wants this all deleted is because he got caught with his pants down as a sockpuppet of Retcon, and even fugged up and got his personas mixed up at one point before trying to delete the evidence, all of which is talked about here.Tommstein 01:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Link update (simply because I don't like changing old Talk content): User:Tommstein/Retcon-Missionary Sockpuppet Evidence.Tommstein 06:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Admission

Self-Admission

As has been pointed out above, this account was a sockpuppet of Retcon. The user Retcon (myself) was unaware of the sockpuppet policy on Misplaced Pages, and the intention used for switching to Missionary was due to multiple personal attacks by the user known as Tommstein when I was using Retcon. I then posted content as Missionary, and was again abused. I exercised bad judgement on one thread in relation to defending one identity with another one. When I became aware of the sockpuppet policy in its entirety 4 days ago, I immediately ceased posting content on disputed pages under either alias. I deeply regret this infraction, and while I will be attacked by a few individuals for my lack of knowledge on this policy and poor decisions, I simply want to move on. This account will no longer be used and this user will not make multiple edits on any individual pages with more than one alias. Administrators can check this in the future. I ask for a fresh start. I also ask that, not as rationale but to allievate attacks on other new posters, administrators also continue to monitor Tommstein and Central, as they call their fellow users names when their beliefs conflict with their own. I have violated the sockpuppet policy, just as Tommstein in particular has violated the personal attacks policy with labels such as "punk", "idiot", "dumb" to names but a few derrogatory statements, along with his multiple POV attacks attempting to discredit an organization he is no longer associated with. I will be making a list in the upcoming days (as Retcon) on the multiple occasions for administrators to review. Thank you for your time, and especially to my fellow JW editors, a sincere apology. Retcon 16:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure many others here are not remotely impressed with your halfway confession. You are clearly lying when you make out you did not know about using multiple accounts, and you have consistently lied when challenged on this when suspected, and caught, protesting over and over, and claming the accusations are vicious lies and personal attacks, and as we already knew and see the accusations were all true! How many more names have you hidden away? What about the others? IP law girl?, Netministrator? Steven Wingerter? And how many others out there? How you expect to "start a new" when you haven't the balls to even come clean, but just make more excuses of "I didn’t know" or "he called me a name. . ." You are a Jehovah's Witness and you seem to have little or zero comprehension about honesty. You have also caused a great deal of stress on the board with your vandalising and arguing, and pretending to be many different people, and wasting posters good faith and time, as if you thought it would make your case better, when in fact you just look like some deceitful religious propagandist who has no comprehension of honesty or integrity. You demonstrate how dangerous your religion is, as even when caught you have failed to show any repentance, or even comprehend what you did and are still doing is totally out of order. Where are your apologies to Tom and I? You protested your "innocence" over and over again, and now you just make excuses for it, no real repentance. You should be ashamed, you come here representing Jehovah’s Witnesses and this is how you act. Central 20:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith. - CobaltBlueTony 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when this person has claimed that this account was not connected to Retcon,and even attempted to provide "evidence" for that position. I've tried to wait and see what's going on here, but as of now, I can't assume good faith. --Krich (talk) ~22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

While the behavior was deceptive, intended to avoid personal attacks, it was self-evidently not done as a blatant disregard to the policy, as he was unaware of the policy. Once the policy was made known to the user, he posted an admission. There's nothing at all other than accusation to connect Retcon to any other account. Good faith can be seen in that he did not intend to violate Misplaced Pages policy. Good faith can also be seen in that there is no evidence that he is intentionally trying to hurt the project. It is not really 'good faith' to revert an edit on someone else's talk page if they were the ones editing it. The best and more logical explanation is Hanlon's Razor, not bad faith. (No offense to Retcon.) - CobaltBlueTony 22:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just not buying that. People told him that he was suspected of being a sockpuppet - rather than say he didn't know what that was, or say nothing at all, he instead decided to lie and create fake "evidence" that the Missionary account was not him (i.e., Retcon).

As to editing "his" talk page - I try very hard to bend over backward in such cases, and held my hand many times when I felt that "Missionary" was using deceptive edits here to hide. Now that Retcon has admitted this account is a sockpuppet, "user Missionary" has no rights to the content of "his" page, in my opinion. --Krich (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. RetCon, while I appreciate that you may not have been aware of the sockpuppet policy, you were accused of violating it some time ago, and you did not immediately admit to it. You used the sockpuppets to try defend that you were two separate users, and then even changed post signatures. This hardly seems the behaviour of someone who made an honest mistake. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I did not see the word sockpuppet in Retcon's interchanges as himself or as Missionary with others; nevertheless, I had never heard the term before Misplaced Pages, and if you had called me a sockpuppet, I would have thought it was some tech-geek/nerdy insult and dismissed it. I certainly did not see the accusation labelled until right before I saw Retcon acknowledge it. I agree that Retcon was attempting to play as more than one person, but as someone unaware of the term and/or its application within the rules of Misplaced Pages. - CobaltBlueTony 03:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You sure are trying real hard to defend a busted and subsequently confessed sockpuppeteer... I'll of course offer no commentary on that. If you didn't see the accusations of sockpuppetry until you say you did, it's because you weren't paying attention.Tommstein 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you are correct, I made some poor decisions for which I regret. I would say, as my solitary defense, that had the No Personal Attacks Policy been as equally enforced as the sockpuppet policy, then I would've stuck with Retcon. Tomm and Central have a long history of attacking fellow editors whom they disagree with, attacking them with derrogatory slurs which directly contradict policies established here. Central was banned for a period due to his hostility last summer, and Tomm has had several individuals whom he has verbally abused. Unfortunately, I made a bad decision which I regret, although I cannot bring myself to apologize to these two individuals as they have instigated this situation, Tomm with his multiple erroneous "vandal" proclamations whenever a viewpoint disagrees with his own, and Central with attacks and slanderous misrepresentations such as "did you know the Society is involved with contract killings?" Krich, I know I have no leg to stand on, but I ask that you refer to the other contributors on the pages in question...Dannymuse, IP Girl, CobaltblueTony, to name just a few of the many they've offended. Ask for their testimony and please restore some order to the JW pages, they are heavily NPOV in certain areas rather than presenting both sides...as they offer extensive commentary. I'm through with those pages, much to the delight of these two detractors. Again, to everyone else, including you Konrad (whom I havent' always agreed with but do respect) I offer my sincere apologies. I know it is too little too late, but that's all I can say. Retcon 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's the greatest defense I've ever heard, 'I created sockpuppets (with seemingly no intention other than to vandalize and attack people) because people were attacking me after I was attacking them.' Not to mention a glorious apology for crassly breaking Misplaced Pages policy. If I hadn't posted my page catching you bare-assed with your pants down around your ankles you would still be playing your charades, just like you did until that point. Trying to blame the people you instigated for your sins isn't really helping your cause... so please continue.Tommstein 07:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, I have seen it all now! I will copy this and send it to your leaders at the Watch Tower Society. Words fail me (and yes that is rare), how can you write such replies and think that you can manipulate the posters here? Do you think Misplaced Pages is made up of people you can fool in a blink of an eye? I will point out your main weaknesses:

"Tomm and Central have a long history of attacking fellow editors. . ." Ad hominem diversion. Your actions are being discussed here, not Tom's or mine.

"Central was banned for a period due to his hostility last summer" Again ad hominem, irrelevant as it does not relate to you, and inaccurate. I was blocked for 12 hours due to arguing with Danny Muse. Oh yes, you forgot to mention that he was "banned" (blocked) for personal attacks, interesting you missed that off! Trying to turn others away from me won't justify what you've been doing!

"I cannot bring myself to apologize to these two individuals as they have instigated this situation" Again you demonstrate no remorse, and refuse to take any responsibility for your actions, another sign of zero repentance, if this were a Jehovah's Witness case, you would be disfellowshipped (excommunicated) about ten times over by now!

Sheesh, this is absolutely ridiculous! It's obvious to me that this guy is an ex-witness with a huge beef against the religion for whatever personal reason he may have. He's been using silly guilt induction tactics like the ones above to try to convey some sort of authority that is simply erroneous, irrelevant and beligerent. Guess what Central, this isn't a "Jehovah's Witness case" (whatever that means to you) so stop trying to make it one and by the way if it were, he wouldn't be disfellowshipped for two reasons:

1.) We don't even use the term "disfellowship" anymore (we've stopped since you've been gone)

and

2.) You wouldn't have been disfellowshipped for not saying you're sorry. (I think you are having some bad Kindergarten flashbacks.)

I know Retcon made a mistake, he's admitted it, we all know this, okay people, okay.....but do we really have to continue to contend with this slanderous banter and hearsay just because these two view Retcons error as a feather in their over-inflated and empty caps? IP law girl 06:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the 'this guy's just a non-Witness that doesn't like Jehovah's Witnesses' defense, complete with the follow-up red herrings galore and massive hand-waving. Creatively brilliant if I may say so myself.Tommstein 08:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"and Central with attacks and slanderous misrepresentations such as "did you know the Society is involved with contract killings?" LOL! Attacks? To whom? Not you. And I would appreciate you not misrepresenting what I actually said and the context of it. You have just demonstrated in one sentence your own gross hypocrisy and desperation to try and attack me in ad hominem fashion with false quotes. What I actual y said was as a satirical joke at the end of a satirical comments on a Watchtower article that demonised some poor woman. My exact words were at the end "PS. Do you know if the Watch Tower Society does contract killings? Central 13:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)" Please read that again and compare it with Retcon|Missionary's fake "quote". If anyone is interested in the whole lot it can be found here. My satirical points start "The points are not about the Human rights of shunning, they are about the persecution, slander, and general abuse of Humans Rights and protocol. . ." Again, we see how unrepentant Retcon|Missionary is, as he has to try and make up total scumbag lies and rubbish as a massive smoke screen to his own behaviour, over and over we see here diversion, dodging and ad hominem of others. A truly sad example of a Jehovah's Witness's mentality. Be warned, this is what this religion does to their sense of reality, truth, morality, and decency. They call it "Theocratic War Strategy" which means lying your arse off to cover your back or the Watch Tower's. Quote: "it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth" —JW's Watchtower magazine, Use Theocratic War Strategy 1 May 1957 pp.285-286

"I'm through with those pages" I doubt that very much seeing as your have such a weak grasp of telling the truth, or talking any responsibility for your own actions. You refuse to make an apology to the two posters who you have messed about the most. I hope they block your two IPs, and pre-moderate all new or current posters from Colorado that appear on the JW pages. As no one believes anything you say anymore. Central 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Correction #1: He only claims to have been ignorant of the fact that you can't create all the accounts you want and start pissing people off and pretending they're separate people. I suppose you really expect someone to say they knew the policy and broke it anyway. I didn't know the policy either until I researched it for this case, but it's a self-evident thing. Stupidity is not a defense.

Correction #2: Once the policy was made known to the user, he did nothing but try to delete all mention of the shenanigans and cover up the evidence for about three days, waited until I put up a special page frying his ass, and then, finally, admitted what was already proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Correction #3: There's plenty besides accusation linking Retcon to other accounts. Like, say, my page of evidence and even his own admission.

There's more, but all these corrections for one edit are time-consuming.Tommstein 07:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't use sockpuppets and play stupid afterwards.Tommstein 07:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Good defense, good defense. 'I pissed people off as Retcon, changed to Missionary, pissed them off again, and, amazingly, they were pissed at me. It's all everyone else's fault.' And yep, both changing the evidence and trying to have stuff speedily deleted are certainly signs of remorse. Then, in your 'apology', you're mainly apologizing to your co-religionists on your side for who knows what reason and not the people you actually pissed off, accused of lying, personally attacked, etc. Another sign of true remorse. The only thing you're sorry about is that we toasted your ass and kicked it to the moon.Tommstein 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

In Retcon's defense, the development of an alias due to harassment from the previously mentioned editors is not unreasonable. Not everyone deals well with hostile confrontation and unfortunately, the editors (Central and Tomm) are relentlessly confrontational in destructive rather than productive ways. Maybe it's my undergrad experience talking here but I don't think it takes a psych major to understand the natural human tendency to want to separate oneself from conflict or seek out anonymity in the form of an alias when under pressure. Authors/writers do it all the time. This forum should be about sharing facts not irrationally lambasting persons with a different POV. Some of the editors, such as the two named individuals, (if in fact, they're not the same person themselves) have had a bit of a problem wrapping their heads around this idea. I have also been called a "sockpuppet" by these two and as Tony mentioned, I was unfamiliar with this WP term also. I would not have developed an alias myself because I have no problem with confrontation whatsoever but I can understand why Retcon did. Was it inappropriate? Yes, but the guy has said as much himself and has made a public apology. I say lesson learned, let it go and let's move on. If you have any question as to the validity of anyone else's identity, let's root it out now. I have absolutely NO problem proving who I am. Should we do this with all the posters here? Then, after we establish everyone's legitimacy, maybe we can address the issue of irrelevant and defamatory edits? IP law girl 04:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, undergrad experience. You impress us all. Unless you're in graduate school, I've got you beat (yes, this is when you inform us all that you in fact hold four Ph.D.s from various Ivy League schools). Whether you can understand how the deviant mind works or not is irrelevant; people spend their entire lives studying such stuff, but no one else here cares. The rest of your post was accuse-everyone-but-the-guilty hand-waving and throwing the crap on any other wall you can get it to and hoping it sticks elsewhere, so I won't respond.Tommstein 08:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The indentation was getting to me - hard to keep track of what's going on with Retcon deleting so much, and the trouble required to replace it for an accurate record of what happened here.

IP law girl and CobaltBlueTony, I really don't understand why you two are working so hard to excuse and justify Retcon's behaviour here. I can see that tempers have flared on both sides of the recent edit wars on this article and related ones - and I do agree that there have been some occassional inflammatory and, frankly, petty comments and edits made by some of the non-JW's active in this discussion.

But - it was my impression that Witnesses placed a very high regard on honesty. Even if the premise is accepted that Retcon felt intimidated by "harrassment" (which seems a bit silly to me, but for the sake of argument) - Retcon used this account to create a false appearance that he had more support for his positions than he did. He tried to "stack the deck". That is how he used this "Missionary" account over and over. He then lied when asked about it, and attempted to create false "evidence" to prove his lies. He is now attempting to delete sections of the discussions here, making it difficult to follow his path. I do understand that positions are rather polarized here - but truly, I don't think the Witness position is well advanced or represented by constant attempts to excuse Retcon's actions - actions that, in my opinion, Witnesses that I have known would deplore for the inherent dishonesty and "bearing false witness" involved, even if these weren't violations of Misplaced Pages's policies too (which of course they were).

--Krich (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

When you put it that way, that's quite a crowd that Cobaltbluetony and IP law girl roll with and defend.Tommstein 08:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point Krich and it is a valid one. Make no mistake about the fact that honesty is a very important quality to have and so is the quality of forgiveness and trying to relate to another persons actions when they have been called into question. My attempt to understand Retcons motive for doing what he did does not make me undervalue honesty it just means that I believe he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. I do not condone what he did, I only attempt to understand it, to move forward toward forgiveness and ultimately, to move forward period. Perhaps it is also easier for me to search out the redeeming quality in the defendant when his prosecutors have been so vehement in not only their calling out his error but in their manner of mercilessly lauding over his humiliation as though it were some great defeat against the religion as a whole. I still do not remotely buy into their allegations of a larger ominous motive for Retcons actions. Thank you for your comments. IP law girl 06:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

IP law girl, I too believe in forgiveness. I also believe in consequences, even after true repentence - as I think Witnesses believe as well. A man who lies in public is certainly deserving of forgiveness ("7 times 7" at the very least, as I recall) - but he must still face the music, including bearing the shame of one who intended to deceive.

But beyond that, I am not convinced at all that Retcon is truly repentent here. It seems to me that someone who was truly ashamed of their actions and lies would not still be attempting to edit this fake user account to remove the record of what has happened, as Retcon has done today, well after his public apologies. It looks to me that Retcon is still more concerned with how this looks than being really sorry for doing it.

I said in a comment above that, in my personal opinion, at least a couple of the vocal non-JW's active here editing have occassionaly been petty and inflammatory. I also hold that opinion of some the actions of a couple of JW's who are engaging in the edit wars. There is plenty of incivility happening on both "sides" of this debate. It's just that, so far, I haven't encountered the level of deception from anyone that approaches what Retcon has, and still is, engaged in. When he stops trying to cover up the history, I'll have nothing more to say on it.

Thanks for the civil conversation ;) --Krich (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you too! Even though we have varied opinions, it's soooo nice to be able to engage in a civil tête à tête. Point taken on the "edit wars" thing. I speak for myself in that I know that I have allowed myself to engage in ridiculous banter. I can only say that it is merely my intrinsic litigating nature to meet injustice and degradation head on. I make no excuse here, it's my personality. The ironic thing is, it is only my spiritual training that is able to remotely offset my frank outspoken passion for my convictions when faced with these obtuse arguments. Although it may be hard to believe, I so often find myself biting my tongue these days and simply rolling my eyes at the conjecture. It's been a joy Krich, catch you in the funny pages. IP law girl 07:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies to all concerned

To all parties concerned, what I have done was wrong. Using multiple sockpuppets, at first innocently, and later to cover myself was wrong. Registering accounts to impersonate was wrong (sorry IP Girl, I was up for 24 hours trying to edit balance on the pages, and used the worst and most reprehensible kind of judgment...after your defending me so vigorously this it what hurts most of all). When it was addressed to me, and when I did read the actual policy (which regrettably I failed to do immediately), I immediately desisted as of last Friday from editing except on a new account for a fresh start. With that new account, I tried to mend fences and offer positive contributions. When I kept receiving attacks, and they were attacks, then I created another user ID Satrap on Monday and simply did one edit. However, when I did reflect upon the sockpuppets page I immediately offered the apology. To all concerned I apologize, and my addt'l accounts should be blocked. I do not apologize for the content of posts nor edits, I feel they were fair and balanced but some would not. But I do apologize to all individuals for this deception which I freely admit and will stand accountable for.

I feel it just for admins to block the sockpuppet accounts, and if they wish to monitor any user contributions from this IP address I completely understand. I especially owe a profound apology to those who have defended me...please be assured that I'm trying to make any steps I can to rectify this matter. According to the Bible, which I base my beliefs in, Peter lied three times out of fear when his master needed him most. Abraham misrepresented his wife to protect himself. Jacob misrepresented himself as his brother to gain his brother's right as first born. Even revered prophet Elisha had lied...all of these had done so for defense of what they hold as truth. That was my sole intent, my motivation. I used this rationale for my actions, however that is not an excuse now for what I have done. With that said, I have no desire to edit anymore as this will detract from the purpose of these pages.

I simply ask that with this admission the subject be closed. What I've done I've done alone, I did not do it as a member of any organization or any group. It was solely my decision, and the other individuals who might hold the same side of the issue should not be held accountable. I did edit some responses from certain individuals who attacked my faith for my actions, I feel that isn't appropriate as, again, I alone have done what I have done. But I shall leave messages here now and hope for some mercy shown. Again, I do offer every single individual on Misplaced Pages by most sincere apologies...I should've stopped last Friday but I didn't and that is something I'll regret for years to come. To those who accept my apology, I thank them. To those who still will speak ill of me on talk pages even after this, I don't know what else to say. Missionary 13:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a rousing apology. Especially in light of the newly-revealed fact that you're still both lying out of your teeth and schizophrenically apologizing to one of your newly-revealed sockpuppets: User_talk:Kelly_Martin#Sockpuppet checkuser request, Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Sockpuppet check. In fact, it was revealed over an hour before you even posted your latest 'apology', but then again, you're incompetent (painfully so at this point). Bet you weren't planning on your sincere apology getting caught that fast, were you. You might want to seek professional help for whatever your problem is.Tommstein 17:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What honesty really means

When Annaniah and Saphira presented their gift to the congregations, they misrepresented themselves to make themselves look better. When given the opportunity to amend their assertions, they stuck to their lie. There was punishment; in their case, death.

You have been called on a policy WP:SOCK that, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, should make sense to you: representing yourself truthfully. You've offered apology after apology, and yet there is some pretty damning evidence against you that you STILL have been less than truthful. While I appreciate that there are issues here we cannot perceive, the resulting behavior is nevertheless damaging to any JW sincerely attempting to make sense of the editing process here, and damaging to you as you continue to persist in it. Please, please, PLEASE, help us understand what is going on, even if it is only to me via email. I can relay any message you want if you choose to avoid this forum for a while. And I am also your brother, so you can tell me anything else you feel the need to. - Φιλία, CobaltBlueTony 15:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Retcon