Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User check?

Question. Would it be possible to get a user check on Rafaelfinger's edit here: [1] What we want to find out if this user edited from their home comcast ISP, or their wireless device. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Actually any of his latest edits from 2:25 to 2:45:[2]Giovanni33 (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note for clerk, arbs

After seeing DrGabriela's statement I noticed this user had never even been informed that an arbitration case had officially begun (see the user's talk page under the section "Request for Arbitration"). The user had not commented when the case was first brought forward by Ultramarine, perhaps because the user had not edited in two weeks. I don't believe any of the other users named as sockpuppets of Giovanni33 were contacted to inform them of the beginning of the case either. Though none of them offered initial statements, I would assume that as a rule we do editors who are involved in an ArbCom to the point that they risk being blocked indefinitely the courtesy of informing them that a case has begun. I haven't checked but if there is any account which needs to be notified I would hope the clerk would take care of that.

When this case was initially filed Ultramarine did not notify any of the accounts other than Giovanni33 that a case had been opened, though he ultimately did when I prompted him to (see here). One admin commented at the time "They are socks. There is no need to inform them, G33 already knows." I certainly don't think that's how we should proceed. Regardless of how persuasive the evidence may or may not be, until such time as the committee concludes that all of the accounts in question are in fact sockpuppets, they should be treated as separate accounts.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to an identical enquiry at User talk:AGK, which I hope clarifies why I did not notify the accounts. Regards, Anthøny 08:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. So if in the course of an ArbCom case a given user who is not a named party is accused of being a sockpuppet of another user (and particularly where it seems quite likely that they will be sanctioned as is the case here), it is not the case that that user will be informed that they are being discussed by the Arbitration Committee? I'm sorry but I find that rather incredible, and if that really is policy then it has to change. I would think what should actually happen (and I believe I've seen it happen before) is that if accusations are leveled against certain editors in the course of the case they are made parties to the case if they were not already (which is what should have happened here from the beginning). If the standard approach is what you put forward on your talk page then the following can occur: 1) A given editor is not named a party to an Arbitration case and thus does not hear about it; 2) As the case develops some form of evidence is presented against them yet they are not informed; 3) The committee finds the evidence convincing and blocks the editor for a year; 4) The editor is informed on their talk page that they have been blocked per an ArbCom case which they did not know was open. That seems, well, quite wrong. It's pretty standard to let users know when they are being discussed on AN/I, and I can't fathom how it would be any different here. Obviously in this case if they are all socks it doesn't matter, but we don't assume that going in.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all: a party whose actions are being considered by the Committee will always be notified that this is the case. This includes accounts that are suspected to be sock puppets of another party, but when such a suspicion has not been confirmed by the appropriate forums (ie., by the Suspected sock puppets or Requests for checkuser pages). The reason the accounts were not notified in this case, however, is that they were not listed as a party; it is generally assumed that any editor whose actions are under consideration will be listed as a party.
In this case, they were not listed, which led to their not being notified. As the case clerk, my role is to open the case for consideration as is; Committee Clerks do not function as "filters" or moderators for a case, and furthermore, simply do not have the time to scrutinise every detail of the case. It may so happen that some Clerks also take a personal involvement in their case, including reading up–I know I have done many a time–but that is in a role as an editor, rather than as a Clerk, and such actions are not assumed. In this case, my attention was not drawn to the fact there were missing parties until when a message was specifically left for me to that end, at user talk:AGK.
To conclude, editors being considered will be notified, but in the "hustle and bustle" of arbitration, if they aren't listed as formal parties (as they certainly should be), they will probably be missed. The mistakes are, however, generally tidied up later: to use this case as an example, Giovanni has filed a motion to have those accounts added as parties. I do apologise if you feel as though this should not have happened, but I'm afraid I did not have anything to do with it: the editor who drew up the list of parties made the omission, not myself, and not the Committee.
Hopefully this clears up the confusion.
Regards, Anthøny 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. I forgot adding these accounts to the RfA list after I had notified them of the RfA after Bigtimepeace's note to my talk page. I have now also pointed out to these accounts that the Arbitration case is open. Rafaelsfingers and DrGabriela had already added material to the Arbitration case before this. Supergreenred has not made any edits to Wikipedia for a week after commenting on the RfA on my talk page.Ultramarine (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up Anthony. Your original note on your talk page led me to believe that the standard was to not notify users involved in a case if they were not listed as parties. Now I see the problem is that it may just be missed when users are not made parties to a case who should be—if this was caught they would be added and notified. I still think there's a problem here, and perhaps it should be the role of a clerk (or an individual Arb, rotating each case) to check in as the case proceeds and make sure that all involved parties are actually listed as involved parties. I don't think there was anything nefarious on Ultramarine's part, he just forgot to add all of the users he needed to as parties to the case. Many editors don't have experience with arbitration and might need help in how to fully file a case. The reason this is important is that their omissions could have a real effect on other accounts as in the scenario described above (if the result was that an account got banned without even being notified of a case and the user was angry about that, simply saying "the guy who filed the case against you forgot to list you, sorry" doesn't really cut it as a reply).
Maybe the clerks and the committee can come up with a method for checking as the case begins and at some point in the middle (probably toward the end of the evidence phase) that all of the appropriate parties have been listed (and notified, which they clerk would obviously do anyway). Normally this will happen, but in some cases like this one that draw less attention it may not. I know the clerks and Arbs are very busy volunteers, but I think per case it would take at most 15-20 minutes to run a check along those lines. I hope it's something the clerks and the committee consider in the future since I think you can agree that it's quite possible for problems to arise. The buck should stop with the committee—not with some editor who files a case and might not follow protocol fully correctly because they are not familiar with it.
I'm not trying to be a pedantic pain here, I just think there is a bit of hole in the system and it would be pretty easy to fix it for future cases. No real damage has been done in this case, but it possibly could have been.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair points. The main problem, I think, is resources. As you said, both the arbitrators and the clerks are exceptionally busy: I know I for one would probably not be able to spare more than a five minute glance over the material, if such a glance was with a view to checking for "missed parties".
Then again, I tend to agree with you that the Committee probably could. Speaking hypothetically, if I was in the role of an arbitrator, I would certainly hold "any missing parties?" a spot on my checklist when reading through case material. Once again, however, the key problem here is time: the AC's current backlog cannot, I suspect, devote such time. Perhaps, until the ArbCom becomes less backlogged, this could be the remit of editors such as yourself, who are both competent, and experienced with the dispute's particulars?
Just a thought. :) Anthøny 20:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, so long as someone catches it there's no problem, and usually I think that is the case. Probably the cases that don't receive a lot of initial attention are the main problems (for those that do, someone is bound to notice that a party is missing). Had I taken a close look at this case sooner I would have noticed it earlier, but I put off reading this for awhile even though I was familiar with the dispute. Perhaps the best outcome is a simple awareness that this is an issue and, as you suggest, an "any missing parties?" box on the Arbs checklist (even if it's just a mental one)—particularly for cases that have only received minimal attention from editors and admins and which involve parties that don't spend a lot of time dealing with ArbCom. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni's offer, question for Arbs

In his statement Giovanni33 said "I want to fully cooperate as is deemed necessary to clear my name of these suspicions." He suggested some sort of mini-meetup between the various editors. Two of the other accounts accused of being Giovanni socks, Rafaelsfingers and DrGabriela, claim they are not socks but independent accounts (the latter gives their supposed city of residence). While it is possible that all of these accounts are Giovanni, it is also possible that one or more of the accounts are not Giovanni sockpuppets.

I'm wondering if members of the committee are open to some real-world effort on the part of Giovanni and/or other editors to establish their identity independently of one another. There are certainly ways to game this (for example I was opposed to a particular proposal along these lines in the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case), but I assume there are also ways to make it relatively foolproof, particularly if there are several parties involved. Giovanni has said he is willing to do the "legwork" on this so presumably all that would be needed is a method agreeable to the committee and some neutral third-party observer to verify whatever it is that needs verifying.

Would the committee be open to something along these lines? Regardless of the evidence so far presented, it seems that editors interested in trying to prove their innocence should be given some opportunity to do so. If that attempt fails completely or is not wholly persuasive so be it, but so long as a ton of the committee's time isn't wasted I don't think any harm is done. I assume similar things have been done in the past, but it might be more complicated in this case. Personally I have no brilliant suggestion for how to go about handling a situation like this, but I think it is worthwhile to pursue an option along these lines so long as it is one that is extremely difficult to game. Thoughts from Arbitrators on this issue would be appreciated.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a way to verify who is actually using an account. If Giovanni is a sockpuppet master he can pass on login information to friends, etc to pose as "real people".
Even if that were possible it would only show they were not sockpuppets - they could still be meatpuppets. John Smith's (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe there have been cases in the past where editors have been allowed to provide some sort of real-world information that suggests they are not socking (I can certainly think of ways to approach this that would make an effort to "pass on login information to friends" unsuccessful). I'm simply asking the Arbs if they would consider something along those lines in this case since Giovanni made a point of bringing that up. Meatpuppetry is harder to disprove, true, but if some real-world evidence was provided that one or more of the accounts was not a Giovanni sock, that would certainly put some holes in this case (which is based largely on linguistic similarities, editing times, etc.). I'm not saying that's what would actually happen, but we're talking about a long time editor who might well be banned at the end of this case. Personally I feel if they have a desire to prove their evidence in some "real-world" fashion and there is a relatively easy and reliable way to do that it's worth it to look into that option. Giovanni would have to take the initiative and the Arbs would have to agree, which is why I'm putting the question to them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
G33 is free to offer any evidence he wishes, and the Arbs are free to listen. But I'm not sure what's plausible here. We already know that some of these accounts have claimed never to have heard of G33. So we would have to believe three perfect strangers would be willing to show up at a meet to prove something about a website and a person they've had marginal interaction with? (And we still have the case of the IP editors.) I would find it far more plausible that G33 would have three friends claim they are SGR, RF, and DG; as he's assured us over and over again, San Fran is full of people with his exact POV, and we know he's well-connected, with good contacts in the (presumably progressive) media. At some point, per Occam's Razor, no amount of off-wiki evidence short of an FBI wiretap proving the time and location of edits would enough to overcome the fantastic amounts of on-wiki evidence that these accounts are SPAs, and indistinguishable in editing behavior from G33. - Merzbow (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what is or is not plausible, I'm just putting this out there because I believe things like this have been done in the past. It's actually best not to discuss any specifics for obvious reasons. Again, it does not really matter what you or I think, it matters what the Arbs think, whether they are open to things like this, and whether there is some way to go about doing it. Basically everyone commenting here has decided that all of these accounts are socks that should be banned. Maybe so, but given the severity of what we are talking about it's not unreasonable to simply ask if the person (or possibly persons) being accused can defend themselves in some off-wiki fashion. That's a question for the members of the committee, and I don't think there's much point in discussing it further until one of them weighs in. This case has been pretty low profile and quite frankly somewhat sloppy in my view (cf. my comment in the previous section). I'm trying to make sure that those accused are treated fairly, nothing more.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that all the accounts are socks or that they are all meat puppets. This is not an all or nothing scenario where we have to define each alternate account as either a sock or meat puppet. I doubt we could get that correct and I think trying to prove which accounts are which will ultimately fail. Rather, taking the evidence in as a whole, we see that that these accounts are all in violation of the policy on puppetry. Giovanni33 has survived many bannings because of the benefit of the doubt and the remote possibility that these are simply coincidences. Each time, the opportunity existed for the coincidences to end. But they continued and after a while, the coincidences are too much and a decision needs to be made to end the coincidences by blocking the accounts so the encyclopedia can move past the coincidental disruption. Sometimes coincidences are just too unbelievable. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification for DHeyward with respect to my evidence

I don't want to debate this on the evidence page itself, but this is in response to DHeyward's comment on my evidence. If you re-read the evidence I wrote up, you will find that I do not accuse you of editing in bad faith, I argue that you are assuming bad faith of Giovanni which is quite different. It's not a personal attack, it's a comment on your evidence. One cannot make an ad hominem attack against evidence—providing evidence to argue against other evidence is by definition not an ad hominem. Nothing I said is an attack against you (rather I'm re-interpreting evidence to argue against your evidence), and most of what I wrote has nothing to do with you. So, no, I won't be refactoring just because you can't tell the difference between an ad hominem attack and a strongly worded but completely rational counterpoint. Also it's not very subtle to claim to not be saying that I am "enabling sockpuppet trolls" while at the same time saying basically precisely that. But I'm not going to get all worked up over it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My evidence doesn't "assume" anything as evidence can do no such thing. Read AGF and you will see that accusing people of "assuming bad faith" is a personal attack [3]. Only people can assume and postulating that I am assuming bad faith is a personal attack and is an ad hominem argument. You don't provide any rationale for accusing me of assuming bad faith, other than you disagree with my analysis. Certainly that is not enough to justify a personal attack by accusing me of "assuming bad faith" of Giovanni. I do no such thing. I provided evidence that he is a SPA and a sock/meatpuppet. I odn't have to assume anything to provide evidence which is what I have done. My arguably pointy response of "not enabling sockpuppet trolls" was to try and show you that ad hominem arguments have no place here and wikilawyering that it's not a personal attack when it's written verbatim into the AGF policy is rather disturbing. I could have worded it the same way as you did: "BTPs analysis and excuses for Giovanni33 takes enabling sock puppet trolls to new heights" but I'd rather stick to the evidence and explain why you are wrong as opposed to characterizing your personal motivation or thought process. --DHeyward (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is beyond pointless, and I'll let you have the last word if you like, but the section of the AGF policy you link to is about "Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith," not about pointing out that someone is engaging in the behavior described (namely making unwarranted accusations of bad faith) which is what I was doing. Again, because I said it before, I am not accusing you of bad faith and have not made any "argument against the man." Not in the slightest. Your evidence is however, in my view, itself an accusation of bad faith which is what I was pointing out. I'm talking about what you said, not who you are. You said that Giovanni did vandalism reversion "to drive up his count and article diversity." It is simply a fact that you were assuming bad faith there (unless you were in his mind somehow while he was doing it) and this is all I was pointing out, along with providing evidence that Giovanni started doing that because I suggested it as a way to remove himself from conflict (i.e. he didn't do it in bad faith). If you are willing to basically say "obviously this person is only pretending to help the encyclopedia by reverting vandalism", you ought not get up in arms when someone calls you out on that. Imagine how you would feel if someone described work you did as nothing more than a cover for more problematic activities, without any evidence whatsoever. And if you really and truly think that someone who points out that you are not assuming good faith of another editor's actions is making a personal attack against you then I really don't know what else to say. Obviously we are not going to see eye to eye on this so I'll leave it there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Again you are incorrect. I was pointing out that Giovanni33's vandalism fighting is what drove up his article counts. I really don't care why he did it nor did I contend that his vandalism fighting was only pretend. And in fact, fighting vandalism benefits the project. But to claim that he isn't a SPA because of his mainspace contributions are large and diverse is fallacious. His edits look substantial because of his vanbdalism edits, not because of a diversity in substantial contributions. My only accusation is that he is a SPA and puppet master. That's backed up with evidence. In your first response you said
“ I argue that you are assuming bad faith of Giovanni ”

. The policy says

“ Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith. ”

There is no clear evidence that I acted in bad faith or that I assumed bad faith on the part of Giovanni33. Nor would it even be relevant in the context that you raise it. I could be believe that Giovanni33 is "Willy on Wheels" and it wouldn't matter one wit. I presented an analysis of his edits and it doesn't require any bad faith to understand my analysis or see the data behind it. Painting my analysis as being in bad faith or assuming bad faith or whatever other ad hominem shadow you are trying to portray is a personal attack. You don't seem to understand what an ad hominem argument is so I'll explain. The literal interpretation is "to the man" not necessarily against. When your argument against numerical data is that I (the person) must be breaking a social normative rule to even think such a thing, that's an ad hominem argument (or if you prefer to interpret your argument differently, appealing to an emtional reaction to "assumption of bad faith" is also a logical fallacy). Contending that the result of an analysis is "amusing" can is also an ad hominem argument since you posit it as

“ DHeyward's contention that Giovanni had only edited "800 unique pages" would be amusing... ”

. Considering that you don't dispute the fact that he edited 800 unique pages, you must be pointing out that the flaw is either a) DHeyward is the one making the contention or b) the fact is amusing. The first is ad hominem. The second is an Appeal to ridicule. Both are logical fallacies. And finallly, I don't think I have never claimed that Giovanni's motives were malicious or that he was working against the interests of the encyclopedia. I claim that he is a spa and sock/meatpuppet master. These are disruptive and ultimately harm the project, but that is different than actively working against the project. Since this distinction is most likely the reason why he wasn't banned for his previous confirmed sockpuppetry, it's disappointing that you leap to the "not assuming good faith" argument when in essence that's the only reason he's still around. It is possible to present evidence of sock/meat puppetry and SPA activities without having to assign intent to the editor who is accused of doing it. Giovanni33 should be banned for sock puppetting and being a SPA because those activities are ultimately harmful to the project, but not because Giovanni33 himself is working against the goals of the project. Giovanni33 is disruptive, though I assume he is not trying to be disruptive. Your characterization is a personal attack becuase it presumes that I am assuming bad faith when in fact I am not. If you do not understand this, then I don't think you understand what AGF means nor what a personal attack is. --DHeyward (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

DHeyward, perhaps if you wrote down what exactly your definition of 'single purpose account' is we would be able to see how you can in good faith claim that G33 is one, and also see whether or not being a 'DHeyward's single purpose account' is something that in anyway has meaning in this review of sockpuppetry. (And, I believe that several times in the above you talk about G33's 'vandalism edits' you accually mean 'antivandalism edits' - if you could clarify that as well.)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've said what it is many times and it's on the WP:SPA page. --DHeyward (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The definition at SPA: "A single-purpose account (SPA) is a term commonly used to describe a user account that edits either a single article or a group of related articles on Wikipedia." - and so you call edits on terrorism, christianity, hitler, mao and close to 800 other articles "a group of related articles" - or do you consider those a single article? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And here you could be improving your reading comprehension skillz instead of making snarky comments. Ignorant and illiterate is no way to go through life. --DHeyward (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with that last statement, but suggesting that other editors are ignorant and illiterate is no way to go through an ArbCom case or anything else on Wikipedia. It's strange to see you complain above (rather without justification in my view) about a personal attack and then turn around and make one yourself. But I'm sure you will explain now that that was not a statement about TheRedPenOfDoom but just a random general comment that happened to follow a sentence about that editor, or that the real personal attack is me pointing out that you just made a personal attack, even though I'm only commenting on what you just wrote. Or maybe you can edit your comment in order to blatantly change the meaning and then blame it on someone else's poor reading skills in the edit summary (that was a truly ham-handed maneuver). Most people reading this would see through that kind of stuff though, so it might be better if you just let it go or apologized for implying that another editor is ignorant and illiterate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought you said you would give me the last word? Why are you back if you think it is pointless? Oh, and "blatently changing my comment" is called "refactoring". I left the original there for everyone to see and changing the word "to" to "that" so that it is more clear and takes away the AGF confusion that you have. It didn't substantially change the meaning or the conclusion. People refactor all the time for personal attacks. You should try it. --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request for clarification from John Smith

What exactly is your qualification for making this pronunciation "Furthermore, a genuine user would have been glad of being unblocked and complied with the restrictions put in place." about human decision making? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

People who are blocked for something usually do not immediately go and start doing that exact same thing again. Jtrainor (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
so how often is usually? 90%? 75%? 63.295865%? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't need a qualification to point out the obvious. As Jtrainor indicated, if a user is blocked for a pattern of behaviour and then is unblocked on instructions not to do that, doing the same thing rather shows that they don't care. Supergreenred returned to the page to cause trouble because he's a SPA and not interested in much else, and/or is a puppet. John Smith's (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
So it is "obvious" to someone without background in human behavior that humans always behave logically?TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you hacked into my computer and read up on my history? If not then you do not know what my background is. Not that I would hold myself out as an "expert" on anything as alleged qualifications do not count on Wikipedia.
I am not discussing whether Supergreenred is acting logically or not. I am highlighting further evidence of puppetry and/or SPA behaviour. John Smith's (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And I am asking what basis are you making the claim that someone who repeats an action that got them blocked is a sock puppet? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say any recent behaviour proves sockpuppetry. I said that it is further evidence of puppetry and/or SPA behaviour. There is a world of difference. You may disagree, but I am still entitle to my view. John Smith's (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
we agree that this is evidence of poor behavior on SuperGR's part. However, the rest of your analysis appears to be part of a pattern of the anti-G33 group that ANYTHING G33 or the accused sockpuppet accounts do is "evidence" confirming SPA behavior/sockpuppetry by G33- G33 does a large number of edits on a half dozen articles - SEE HE'S AN SPA!, G33 does edits on hundreds and hundreds of articles SEE ITS EVIDENCE THAT HE IS AN SPA - HE'S COVERING UP THE FACT THAT HE IS AN SPA. G33 'gets real people' in his area to identify themselves as the other editors who have been accused of being socks SEE THAT IS OBVIOUSLY MEAT PUPPETRY - NO ONE WOULD GIVE UP THEIR ANONYMITY FOR SOMEONE THEY DIDNT PREVIOUSLY KNOW (despite the fact that this would also clear the reputation of the accused sock account) ! An accused sock behaves badly after a block is removed SEE THAT IS OBVIOUSLY SOCK BEHAVIOR BY G33 - ONLY SOCKS BEHAVE BADLY WHEN BLOCKS ARE REMOVED! When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Your last edit does you no favours - typing in caps and making incorrect generalisations does not make people see your point (if you have one). I have not said that Giovanni is a SPA, merely that he has a relatively tightly focused POV - others have said he is SPA for criticising the US. I also have not said that only sockpuppets behave badly - that is your own wild assertion. But ignoring direct instructions given after an unblock is requested and granted starts to narrow down the intentions of the person behind the account. Maybe you're starting to see this arb report in a "you're with us or against us" mentality, or maybe you're just emotional because you sympathise with Giovanni as he shares your POV. Either way, you should not misrepresent my position. Unless you have a real point to make other than rant about other users and what they have said, please stop wasting my time. John Smith's (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Funny how these same users are also, even simultaneously, arguing that G33, after having been blocked for socking, has now done that exact same thing again. Seems their idea of human nature is malleable to whatever is convenient for their case. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That was a somewhat vague comment. Can you elaborate, please? John Smith's (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it that vague? How about this: If "a genuine user would have been glad of being unblocked and complied with the restrictions put in place" and G33 really has taken up socking again, what does that make him? A counterfeit user? — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
It would make Giovanni a puppetmaster. Have I misunderstood you somewhere? John Smith's (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but a genuine puppetmaster would surely have been glad of being unblocked and complied with the restrictions. Right? — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
No, because Supergreenred is an alleged puppet - i.e. if it can't be used for puppetry then the account is useless to the puppetmaster. If a puppetmaster is caught red-handed and then promises to change, they may abide by the rules. But they may also simply decide to be more careful next time. That's why supposedly "reformed" vandals sometimes revert to type and start vandalising again - even though that's far more obvious than puppetry. John Smith's (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
So a genuine user would have been glad etc, but a genuine puppetmaster wouldn't. Logically, I guess that means a puppetmaster is not a user. Or that certain ideas are somewhat malleable. — the Sidhekin (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. There is no such thing as a "genuine puppetmaster", as puppetmasters do not act out of good faith - they use puppets to deliberately subvert Wikipedia policy to push POV and/or otherwise fulfill any goals they have. On the other hand what I would call a "genuine user" acts out of good faith but may be blocked in error. After an unblock, the former may decide to mend their ways, or may decide that they merely made a mistake in how they carried out their puppetry. The latter, however, was not originally acting maliciously or attempting to undermine the project so, if they want to stay, will keep within the rules. I'm not sure how I can be much clearer than that. It's quite simple. John Smith's (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, now it is clear. It is clear that you are using the word "genuine" to mean "acting out of good faith". That was quite unclear to me until now. Thanks for clearing that up. Would you mind updating your evidence with this clarification? — the Sidhekin (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As a side note, an uninvolved admin tossed an indef block on Supergreenred, so I suppose some of this discussion is now irrelevant. Jtrainor (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New evidence presented

Now all we need is a third scenario and we'll have a really boring version of the film Clue. In all seriousness, I hope editors who have commented here (and of course the arbs) give serious consideration to the evidence I presented, particularly those who believe G33 has been socking. I think it's worth it to discuss it here if people want to, as it's certainly possible there are things I have missed or places where I went astray. I'm hoping though that there is a real openness to the possibility that the evidence up to now has led us down a wrong alley. That evidence was fine and presented in good faith, but perhaps it told the wrong story.

For those who don't want to look through all of the evidence I just dumped on to the page (and again apologies for the length), here are a few of the key questions for anyone who thinks G33 is the sock or meat puppeteer:

  1. After the SGR account was created, it made a 3RR report. Why did G33 disagree with a block for the reported user if this was his sock, unless he were going to use that as evidence later that it was not his sock? (which he has not, he did not tell me about this 3RR report). Simply saying "other sockmasters have disagreed with their socks before" is not a sufficient answer. One has to explain in this specific context why on earth G33 would create a sock, file a 3RR report with it, disagree with said report with his main account, and then never bring it up again. It makes no sense whatsoever.
  2. We know these accounts are interested in the "state terrorism" nexus as was SPTS and as is G33. But why do Rafaelsfingers and DrGabriela seem to edit other articles which would interest SPTS but not Giovanni?
  3. What is a plausible scenario for believing that the DrGabriela account is not connected to SPTS given the new evidence?

I'm all for discussing this further but at some point will probably post new proposals to the Workshop page. Are the SGR, RF, and DG accounts problematic? Yes, probably they should all be blocked. Is G33 the puppetmaster? It's quite possible if not likely that he is not, and we may have already blocked the person who is.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Evidence of similar editing on obscure articles and snarky edit summaries towards Ultra seem more convincing than occasional misspellings of commonly mispelled words.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added a section responding to yours; I think you're missing the trees for the forest. The fact that SPTS edits from Taiwan and has no connection to California that we know of pretty much negatively dominates by a factor of ten any other positive evidence. And as I think I've demonstrated, I don't find that evidence convincing at all. - Merzbow (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all to say that the SPTS scenario "makes no sense" is more than a little hyperbolic. It's hard to deny that it's at least plausible and I would question the objectivity of anyone who says otherwise. The geographic evidence is the weak point as I said, but SPTS is from the US, not Taiwan. I assume they are teaching English over there as many Americans do. SPTS said on his user page that he grew up in Texas, but for all we know he lived most of his life in the Bay Area before moving to Taiwan. That is far, far, far from being unlikely. I'm basically positing meatpuppetry not sockpuppetry - geographic stuff is thus less important (if SPTS was from Taiwan it would be different).
Merzbow brings up his linguistic evidence again. I have never found that particularly convincing personally, excepting the "POV picture" connection between SGR and RF. Many of the mistakes listed are quite common (lack of hyphenation is ridiculously common) and similarities in wording can be explained by the fact that they are working on the same article and making the same point. My suggestion though is that some or most of these accounts are meatpuppets - I did not look for linguistic similarities to SPTS as a result and indeed would not expect to find them (it's thus strange of Merzbow to point out that the accounts do not sound like SPTS). Merzbow has never explained why these Giovanni sockpuppets (and his evidence basically assumes they are socks, not meats) don't conform to G33's single most noticeable trait as an editor - his excessive wordiness. Surely one of these accounts would have posted a diatribe at some point? And, sure, one could say "well Giovanni was careful and didn't do that," but then he probably would have been more careful about other things as well, and the fact is this is a major respect in which the accounts do not sound like G33. It speaks to the somewhat one-sided nature of the evidence previously presented that no one has bothered to point this out.
The articles which these accounts share in common with G33 are also edited by Ultramarine, and Merzbow offers no explanation for why my scenario is not as plausible as his. I went through most of these edits rather carefully and it's clear they are far more reversions of Ultra than edits supporting G33 (Merzbow if you did not I encourage to look again in that light). Also two of the accounts share interests with SPTS (Nicaragua and the Philippines) which G33 does not share. Merzbow does not really respond to these points, he just says Giovanni was at some of these articles too, but does not explain why the accounts could be disagreeing with Ultramarine on articles related to the "Allegations" article (all of them are tangentially related) as much as they are agreeing with Gio.
You were a bit sloppy with the timing on the 13th. G33's second revert in a week was at 06:55 UTC. Rafaelsfingers started editing 7 hours before that happened, so your (highly speculative) guess that "G33 knew he was on 1RR/W, made his one revert (incorrectly thinking his previous was more than a week ago, a miscalculation he's prone to), and then brought in the socks/meats for more" does not stand up. One of the accounts was already editing. You also ignore the fact that these accounts fire up the same day SPTS turns up after a week break, which ties in with the fact that all three were created during two different SPTS breaks, another coincidence you ignore.
I'm wholly unimpressed by your explanation of the "Dance" 3RR report. You are simply mischaracterizing it. G33 did not "slightly" disagree, he came in and said the editor reported should not be blocked! When you file a 3RR report you want someone to be blocked, period. If it was G33's sock who reported the 3RR why would Gio disagree with it? The fact that this is only one example is irrelevant - it is an utterly nonsensical type of behavior and you have to at least try to explain it, not brush it aside. In a police investigation if someone has an airtight alibi then all other evidence is cast aside even if it looked bad. This incident is not an airtight alibi for G33 re: the SGR account but it's close. And yes SGR and G33 both wrote "UltraMarine" instead of "Ultramarine" in that thread, but G33 wrote "Ultramarine" correctly in that same thread as you know. So that's a wash.
Your explanation for the "GABRIELA" issue is even less impressive. I don't even know exactly what you are saying quite frankly, but you seem to be making up a story out of whole cloth. G33 decides to create a Filipina sockpuppet (uh, okay), Googles on "woman human rights philippines" (uhh...), and picks the name "Gabriela" for their sock, perhaps learning enough Filipino at some point to post a note in that language. Yes, that is a "tenuous connection." What is not tenuous is the evidence I presented which shows that SPTS has an abiding interest in the Philippines (they did not just add that section to the "Allegations" article, they continued to work on it and defended it vigorously which is what made me think of that in the first place); and edited an article on a (by American standards) obscure leftist political group; and that Gabriela edits Philippines articles and apparently chose their username based on the name of one of the sub-groups in that obscure leftist political group. Oh and both share an identical view of the "Allegations" article and fight with Ultramarine. Do you honestly think that that is a "tenuous connection," or that a Google search for "woman human rights philippines" somehow ties the DG account to G33?
To be frank I don't think you've even come close to answering the three questions I asked above. You've basically restated your case and offered some rather unconvincing counter arguments. I'm concerned that you seem to be so utterly sure of your account and so dismissive of mine (e.g. "makes no sense" - I certainly think your account "makes sense" but do not see it as remotely having been proved). I do not at all so certain (I could be wrong and there is always significant uncertainty in these kind of cases), so I hope you have not become too enamored of your previous evidence.
I would also note that Ultramarine's new post to the evidence page is not exactly evidence. Basically it amounts to "what if SPTS and G33 are sharing accounts?" Well you'll need some evidence of that, not a wild, shot in the dark hypothetical. I do however take that as a tacit admission that Ultra now sees a possible connection between these accounts and SPTS.
I'll keep future replies much shorter, don't worry.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You still speculate that SPTS could have had a Bay Area connection, while providing no evidence - yet G33 lives here. Speculation vs. hard facts. No matter what else is said, I still submit that all attempts to link SPTS to this run flat into this brick wall. In fact, I should have stopped here, but nonetheless... The supposition that SPTS is showing up at these article to attack Ultra and not support G33 is concretely refuted by the fact, which you have not addressed, that the one article aside from "Allegations..." that SPTS had the biggest disagreements with Ultra over - and in fact the only article it seems - is the Sandinista article, which none of the socks edited. Also, why would SPTS start socking after he comes back from a block, not during it? Also, you seem fixated on the length of posts by G33 and others; it's not the length that matters, since that usually depends on what is being responded to, and how much time one has (perhaps while socking he's at a friend's house for the night), but the intra-sentence language and grammar. I've shown how the language itself shared by these socks and G33 is overly wordy and redundant - please see the examples in my section again. SPTS does not tend to drop into such redundancies, and he does not tend to make whole other categories of errors that G33 and socks do - while engaging in unique categories of his own. Merzbow (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice now that when you said "week's break" for SPTS you did not actually mean he was blocked then; he wasn't. But checking the contribution history of the socks, RF edited during that break, and the IPs had significant numbers of edits during then also. You really have no point here. - Merzbow (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am largely talking about meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry, but you continue to speak as though I had to prove the latter. I do not find your linguistic evidence particularly convincing (though in the absence of an alternative explanation it is somewhat suggestive), and the fact that the accounts do not necessarily sound like SPTS (I have not really looked) has no particular bearing on my evidence. Yes, RF edited during the break, my whole point there was that all three accounts were opened while SPTS was on two different breaks and I find that to be a bit of an odd coincidence. Basically your main reason for dismissing this is geography. Yes, it is a fact that G33 lives in the Bay Area along with over 7 million others. But extrapolating from that fact the "fact" that these other accounts must be connected to him because they are in the Bay Area is not going to fly. Yes, I don't know if SPTS has a Bay Area connection. But as a card carrying leftist from the US who obviously travels is it so hard to believe? There have been times when I've known more than 10 people just in San Francisco and I've never lived there myself. You seem to want to dismiss all of the SPTS evidence just because of the geography factor. A better approach might be to put that to the side for awhile (knowing that SPTS might well have lived there, known people, might visit regularly, etc. - it's not so much a "brick wall" as you say but just an unexplained factor) and just think about the evidence presented without worrying about where the accounts IP address is. I noticed you did not mention the "Devil" 3RR report by SGR or the GABRIELA/Philippines connection. Those two bits alone punched some significant holes in your case and you really do not have an adequate explanation for either.
Re the Sandinistas, Ultramarine has made exactly two edits to that article since April 13th (when Stone last edited it). This was promptly reverted an hour later by User:Pexise. This edit (really the same content, Ultra was edit warring to include it apparently) seems to have stayed. Why didn't one of the accounts revert that edit later? I don't know, but considering there was literally only one Ultramarine edit which even could be reverted its hardly shocking that there hasn't been much action over there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've filed a checkuser involving SPTS and some of the accounts in this case before, and they were tagged as unrelated for the most part. SPTS's IP originates in Taiwan, it would be rather unlikely for him to have a California IP. Jtrainor (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you read the above discussion or the evidence very carefully. SPTS is in Taiwan, yes. It's possible he somehow spoofed IPs or was in California for awhile at some point, I don't know. But as I explain a couple of times above, this evidence was presented largely with meatpuppetry in mind, not sockpuppetry. SPTS does not need to be in California to know people there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "evidence" by evil spartan

I just have to say that the "evidence" provided in the table by evil sparan is completely underwhelming in its ability to make a case.

That a G33 and the suspected socks have edits on "Allegations" "Talk:Allegations" and "Articles for deletion: Allegations" ... well "duh". If that is any kind of evidence then all the editors on the article are sock puppets cause all have made significant edits to all three. That editors of "Allegations" have followed the links in "Allegations" to make edits on those articles, too. Not surprising and hardly convincing evidence of puppetry.

If every editor who has a pattern of "comments on article edits" "no comments on talk page edits" "begining revert edit summaries with rv" "giving an explanation in addition to the 'undo' edit" - well then a quarter of WP is G33 socks.

Editing repeatedly on Talk to make points clearer cause we "didnt use preview" - now we are up to 50% of WP being G33 socks.

One "Moody" or attack eidt summary ---- come on! <-- an exlamation point, I must be a sock too! Now 93% of WP is G33 socks.

Perhaps there is some legitimate evidence within Spartan's post, but there is so much that is quite frankly just laughable that it is hard to take any of it seriously and finding any real evidence within so much fluff is nigh unto impossible. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)