Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

[edit] FromUser:Ultramarine

The following were addendums to Ultramarine's original statement. That statement can be viewed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33.

[edit] Response to Merzbow

Yet more linguistic and behavorial evidence in addition to that already given clearly showing the sockpuppetry.

[edit] Responses to Relata refero and Bigtimepeace

The SevenOfDiamonds case clearly shows that the Arbitratrion Committee has the ability to judge sockpuppetry.[1] The Mantanmoreland case did in fact lead to several remedies against this user and more generally.[2]. Before making any claims regarding what the Arbitration Committee found, please note that "the key statement is emphasised by italics. This finding of fact should not be mis-cited or used (deliberately or otherwise) by any user to signify other than is clearly stated." See: [3]

A situation where Wikipedia cannot act if checkuser does not show identical internet providers seems very harmful. That would mean that users could avoid all restrictions simply by using different providers. Especially if using wireless providers, as in this case, which are difficult to locate. Much new evidence has been added by me and Merzbow. The Arbcom is needed in this case where Giovanni33 by using such less obvious methods for a long time has managed to systematically violate Wikipedia policies and create disruption. He and his methods are harmful to Wikipedia.

[edit] Statement by Giovanni33

The following were addendums to Giovanni33's original statement. That statement can be viewed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33.

[edit] Response to WMC

WMC seems to have invoked a new policy that I never heard of before: talking too much. While I do confess to being long winded at times, I stay on topic and focus my longer posts to strictly matters of article content improvement. This is positive, not negative, to the project. When there is dispute, the solution is to discuss it. The section the WMC cites as an example of my talking too much is ironic. Take a look at it:[4] There you will see that I had only left one sentence consisting of a mere 12 words. Compare this to Ultramarine's some 23 sentences and 318 words. But in WMC's view, its me who should be kicked out, now due to being too wordy? Again, I do not claim to be generally short on words, however, when I am short on words, its because its not directly related to article content as this example proves. Any review of my edits over many articles will show my contributions to the project have been genuine and worthy, and that my interaction with editors of all political stripes have all been focused on improving content and in adherence to WP policies. Claims of disruption are untrue.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Biophys

The CIA remark was meant to be tongue-in-cheek; the fact that there is no proof was the point of the rhetorical remark I was trying to make. I stated I am no conspiracy theorist and likened such a conspiratorial view (equally plausible given a proclivity for speculation without hard evidence) to the equally bad faith allegations that I'm behind an elaborate army of socket-puppets over a wide ranging area. My point was to ridicule both these baseless views (both are in effect attacks) in favor of the common sense middle ground road that assumes good faith and looks at actual disruptive behavior, i.e. the solution that has already been adopted by admins reviewing this situation. I'm sorry you misunderstood my point.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Merzbow

It is hard to read through the contributions of those other accounts and not see a startling similarity in language, subject interest, and POV to Giovanni33. Here is one telling example, relating to the DrGabriela account:

• Giovanni33: 2008-04-23T19:22:20 - "...This op ed piece is not accurate, creates a straw man (who ever claims that the US is to be blamed for ALL the deaths?). Nonsense! ..."

• DrGabriela: 2008-04-21T01:47:08 - "Can you show me where it says the US is responsible for ALL the deaths? Perhaps I missed it."

This is just with 15 minutes of looking, and at just the DrGabriela account. Giovanni33, I think you've been busted. I think the Arbs need to take this case and weigh the network evidence (which is mostly not available to us), in additional to the behavioral evidence (which is all public and, as we've seen in Ultra's and my statements so far, very concerning).

- Merzbow (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting "coincidence":

On 4/18, DrGabrielia suggests adding to the "Allegations..." article information from a book by Lopez and Stohl. To wit:

• DrGabrielia: 2008-04-18T01:58:25 - "I have only put back the Atomic Bombings of Japan. This is important information to the topic here and of State Terrorism. In fact, many scholars argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism, that we know call "state terrorism" came about within the global system of international relations as a result of changes that took place following World War ll... <trimmed, see diff - Merzbow> ...The argument is discussed for exmample by Prof. Micahel Stohl and George A. Lopez, in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988. I have read quite a bit about State Terrorism this section looks to be well done. I think it can be expanded a bit, but I know the topic is that of the US role in State Terrorism."

On 4/23, Giovanni33 suggests in talk adding a paragraph to the article phrased almost exactly like DrGabrielia's earlier post:

• Giovanni33: 2008-04-23T23:13:22 - "I also found this fitting for the section, which I also think is close enough to these Bombings, and a central part of the State Terrorism analysis: "Some scholars argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism... <trimmed, see diff - Merzbow> ... The argument is discussed by Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl and George A. Lopez, in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988."" I think it adds nicely to the section, although its more about State Terrorism per se than this particular act of it, it does cite it as an act, having ramifications for future state behavior that is described as state terrorism within foreign policy. So its quite relevant."

Shortly thereafter he adds it to the article here. Note the similar language and concerns expressed in the two follow-ons to the proposed material (i.e. both express slight concerns the material isn't specific to the US role in state terrorism).

(For further amusement I could list the half-dozen ways Giovanni33 and Dr.Gabriela have begun some of their posts with variations on the phrase "I agree with <the other account>", but I'll save that for later...)

Because this is not an Evidence page, I will present no more, but this should clearly be enough for the Arbs to make a judgment as to whether sufficient evidence does in fact exist to take the case. - Merzbow (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I lied. One more extremely telling piece of evidence:

• "paint a POV picture": Rafaelsfingers: [5], Supergreenred: [6] - Google shows no other usage of this peculiar phrase.

- Merzbow (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Relata refero

Below Relata says that "Focusing on sockpuppetry, which the ArbCom has established is unprovable for long-term established editors in the absence of checkuser evidence, is pointless", which is simply not the case. He must not be familiar with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds#NuclearUmpf, in which SevenOfDiamonds was banned not on network evidence, but on behavioral evidence much like the above (aside from there being confirmation in both cases the accounts in question were from the same geographical area). In cases where the community is conflicted (as here, there are a number of admins who agreed with Jehochman's block before he chose to unblock), we need ArbCom. - Merzbow (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to BTP

I think the requirements you've laid out for arbitration intervention have in fact already been met. You seem skeptical of the evidence, and are an admin. Jehochman seemed to unblock quite reluctantly. Bozmo and WMC seem quite convinced. - Merzbow (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Relata refero

• As I explain to Jehochman [here, I don't see any prima facie case for sockpuppetry in (a) holding the same opinion and (b) being from a particular fairly large geographical area, when (a) and (b) are in fact closely correlated in the real world. More to the point, if checkusers can not pin this down, I don't think that ArbCom needs to go out of the normal process: let SSP do its job.

• If there are separate problems with disruptive editing, then those should be addressed separately. Focusing on sockpuppetry, which the ArbCom has established is unprovable for long-term established editors in the absence of checkuser evidence, is pointless. In particular, the above arguments, which refer to (a) a book frequently cited in the literature as seminal to the debate that the disputed article supposedly suggests and (b) responding to an identical argument by stating the obvious response, are not particularly helpful.

• While these articles are problematic, I urge a broader focus on the articles in general, or on G33's disruptive editing overall. This is counterproductive and a waste of time. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Merzbow: I see your 7ofDiamonds and raise you Mantanmoreland. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Bigtimepeace

It would be nice if the litigiousness surrounding the Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States article (from both sides) could be put to an end. Much of what has been brought up by Ultramarine has already been addressed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers. If the situation needs to be re-examined, the place to do it is at WP:SSP. This is a sockpuppet issue and does not need ArbCom's involvement. User:Jehochman indef blocked Giovanni but then undid the block upon further consideration. There was not much discussion about either action or discord among admins over the issue, so there is no need for ArbCom to step in and this can proceed as a normal sock case if necessary (this is in direct contrast to the SevenOfDiamonds case, referenced by Merzbow, where there was admin disagreement about how to proceed). If the issue is problematic editing by Giovanni33, we already have the William M. Connolley case below (opened by the other side of this dispute) which would allow the Arbs to examine the behavior of all who are editing on this article. That seems to be on the road to rejection though. I urge the committee to reject this case as well and refer the complainants over to the board for suspected sock puppets.

Ultramarine, Merzbow, and others who seek to gather evidence might refer to the Mantanmoreland case mentioned by Relata refero. The evidence here was quite persuasive to many but still did not result in the block of a user who had been caught socking before, as has Giovanni. The reason that the evidence was so persuasive though was that the investigators went into it looking for evidence that would suggest sockpuppetry or exonerate the user in question. Anyone who wants to seriously investigate the accusations against Giovanni cannot simply pick out those diffs which are most suspicious. Some of the techniques used in the Mantanmoreland case might be useful here, but again in my opinion it's not necessary to run the whole thing through ArbCom.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Merzbow

As it stands now there is not a fundamental disagreement between admins such that a standard sockpuppet case cannot proceed. Again to give another example aside from the SevenofDiamonds case, in the Giovanni33-John Smith's case (which was only tangentially about sockpuppetry), Giovanni had originally been indef blocked by an admin but one or more other admins had objected. An alternative remedy could not be crafted, and Giovanni and another party ended up in arbitration. In this case all I (the skeptical admin) am saying is that a proper sockpuppet case has not been made yet. I'm skeptical (but willing to be persuaded) inasmuch as very little evidence has been presented and when I cursorily compared Giovanni's writing style to those of a couple of the supposed sock accounts awhile back they did not seem that similar to me. I'd like to see things like time-stamp analysis, an effort to look for possibly exculpatory evidence, and openness to the possibility that one or more but not all of the accounts are sockpuppets, etc.—so far the evidence is fairly cherry picked, and the most damning piece (from Merzbow, "paint a POV picture") suggests socking between two accounts but does not connect them to Giovanni. No one has explained why this case cannot proceed over at WP:SSP. The only exception I think would be if the committee accepts the William M. Connolley case below, in which case it would probably make sense to roll the sock evidence into that case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by William M. Connolley (talk)

I'd rather you took this as part of the "WMC" case. But if not... well, G33 doesn't belong here, he belongs on usenet [7]. He talks endlessly and this is disruptive (he can't even count to 500, but then neither can Ultramarine :-(). He is a net negative to the project and yet we can't quite bring ourselves to throw him out permanently, despite the socks. Bozmo has suggested dealing with the socks via ANI [8] but... it hasn't worked yet. He and his socks need to be dealt with, by arbcomm or someone else William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Biophys

I do not know much about User:Giovanni33, but he just said the following: "For all I know Ultra is a CIA agent working through Freedom House and has targeted me...". He did not provide any proof. This is clearly a personal attack. This is also related to William M. Connolley case. As I commented previously, the Connolley case has no any merit except these allegations made by Travb and endorsed by Giovanni33. This is basically a Giovanni33-Connolley case. Let's resolve it. This is over the top.Biophys (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jehochman

I think the sock/meat puppetry is a side issue. At least some of the accounts appear to have been colluding for purposes contrary to Wikipedia's, but they're definitely on notice now, so I don't expect they'll be given many more chances before long term blocks are applied. This case should become part of the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States circus. Something needs to be done about the tendentious editing and endless conflicts there. The article seems to be a large coatrack for anyone to hang their opinions upon. If a preponderance of sources establish that there have been incidents of state terrorism, remove "Allegations of" from the title. Otherwise, apply neutral point of view and call it something like "Paramilitary actions supported by the United States" or "Covert military actions of the United States". Jehochman ^Talk 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)