Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

Case Opened on 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Case Closed on 21:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

 * , filing party

Statement by Ultramarine
Giovanni33 may have the longest block log in Wikipedia. He is known to have used several sockpuppets. He is currently under an Arbitration Remedy restriction of 1R/week which he has violated several times. Based on only a small part of the evidence presented below, he was blocked indefinitely for using sockpuppets two weeks ago but some doubt remained and he was unblocked. Much additional evidence and several new sockpuppets as stated below now clearly demonstrates Giovanni33's abuse of sockpuppets and his unfortunately rather successful systematic breaking of Wikipedia policies. As such Giovanni33 is harmful to Wikipedia.

All of the following accounts and IPs come from the same geographic area as Giovanni33 who is located in San Francisco. They are essentially SPA with few edits. They edit a very narrow range of related articles that Giovanni33 is interested in. Such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edited by all), State terrorism, Terrorism, William Blum, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Guatemalan Civil War, and 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. By using these accounts and IPs Giovanni33 systematically violates his 1R/week restriction as well as other aspects of WP:SOCKS by using them in votes and in talk page discussions in order to give a false impression of support.


 * Edits from the same same geographic area as Giovanni33. SPA with few edits reverting to Giovanni33 earlier versions and repeating his arguments. Examples: Here Rafaelsfingers reverts to Giovanni33's version in the US state terrorism article. Here Rafaelsfingers reverts to Giovanni33's exact version in  the Guatemalan Civil War article. Despite that there had been 13 intermediate different  versions by different editors having opposing views in between.   In addition to violating 1R/week, also violates WP:SOCK by voting at the same time as Giovanni33 in an AfD regarding the US state terrorism. When Rafaelsfingers was blocked it was Giovanni33 pleaded for unblocking on Rafaelsingers own talk page. Not Rafaelsingers until an administrator asked for this.


 * Edits from the same geographic area Giovanni33. SPA  with few edits reverting to Giovanni33 earlier versions and repeating his arguments. Examples: Here Supergreenred reverts to  Rafaelsfingers's (another sockpuppet, see above) exact version in the US state terrorism article. Here Supergreenred reverts to an IP in the same geographic area as Giovanni33 in the William Blum article. Here Giovanni33 reverts to Supergreenred's exact version in the William Blum article:


 * Giovanni33 has a long dispute with user:John Smith. Here Supergreenred deletes a talk page edit by John Smith stating "John Smith is not welcome here." Strange reaction by an editor with supposedly only a dozen edits at this time and who had never encountered John Smith before. But Giovanni33 has a long history of deleting John Smith's edits.


 * Linguistic similarities. Supergreenred: "Allow time for discussion and consensus before mass deletions." "Allow consensus for what to properly remove first." Giovanni33: "Allow for editors imput and consensus first please." "Please allow for consensus before re-adding back." Supergreenred: "you are cherry picking only selective facts to paint a POV picture." Giovanni33: "You are cherry picking what information to include and exclude on the basis of POV." Supergreenred stating "remove" instead of "removed": "Source calls him a historian, but you remove that." Giovanni33 stating "remove" instead of "removed": "you remove "historian'  despite what the sources say."


 * Edits from the same geographic area Giovanni33. SPA with few edits reverting to Giovanni33 earlier versions and repeating his arguments. Examples: Here DrGabriela reverts to Giovanni's exaxt version in the Chuch Committe article:. Here Giovanni33 reverts to DrGabriela's version in the State terrorism article.  Here DrGabriela reverts to Giovanni33's version in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état article. Here Giovanni33 reverts to the same paragraph text as DrGabriela in the Terrorism article. In addition to violating 1R/week, also violates WP:SOCK by voting at the same time as Giovanni33 in an AfD regarding the US state terrorism.


 * IP from the same geographic area as Giovanni33. Used to revert to Giovanni33's preferred version. Examples: Here reverts to Giovanni33's exact version in the William Blum article. Here Giovanni33 reverts to this IP in the US state terrorism article.


 * IP from the same area as Giovanni33. Used to revert to Giovanni33's preferred version. Examples: Here makes similar reverts using the same arguments as Giovanni33 in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. Here Giovanni33 reverts to this IP's exact version on the US state terrorism article.


 * IP from the same area as Giovanni33. Used to revert to Giovanni33's preferred version. Examples: Here reverts to Giovanni33 exact version in the US state terrorism article.. Blocked for violating the the 3RR rule. This not including Giovanni33's reverts.


 * IP from the same area as Giovanni33. Has made a single edit in Wikipedia which like Giovanni33 a few days earlier removed an entire section from the US state terrorism article.


 * This does not include the much older confirmed sockpuppets such as User:BelindaGong, User:Professor33, User:NeoOne, and User:CleanSocks as well as the many older suspected sockpuppets and IPs coming from the same geographic area as Giovanni33.

AnnH made this comment on the first Checkuser which still applies "All in all, there is a very disturbing pattern of new users with no prior history at Wikipedia arriving and coming to all the pages he edits, agreeing with him on the talk page, reverting to his version, claiming consensus where none exists, and following him to other articles and voting for whatever he votes for."
 * Note: addendum to this statement have been trimmed, and are located on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33. Anthøny  21:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Giovanni33
Note Ultramarine’s statement under the requirement of utilizing other means of dispute resolution before coming to Arbcom: he states that it’s “pointless.” The truth is that the reason it’s pointless is because this matter has already been looked at by various admins, and the appropriate action has already been taken. There has been nothing new since. Ultramarine’s stop here at arbcom is simply his latest stop in board shopping on an issue that has already been looked at and dealt with, correctly. Therefore, this is a frivolous case. If there was something new the very competent admins on top of the situation would be the ones to go to. There is no debate/controversy among admins as to the solution that was implemented already that would require Arbcom to waste their time dealing with it.

The relevant information about this already settled matter can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rafaelsfingers

Because upon first appearances the evidence looks quite convincing it led an admin to initiate blocks. However, upon closer inspection of the actual evidence, minus all the smoke and mirrors, assuming good faith—and after consulting with other admins who are familiar, a remedy was found and taken.

The blocking admin states: “Upon discussion with several administrators who know Giovanni33's style, I have sufficient doubts that I have unblocked.” An admin who I trust and had asked to look into this matter via e-mail informed me it was just a case of "mistaken identity." Although I was still concerned and suggested that maybe I should not edit these article anymore for a while, until these other accounts go away-- he said there was no need to avoid the articles just stick to strictly to my arbcom probation. None of my editing has been anything other than productive with these articles.

About the other account alleged to be my socket-puppet, the blocking admin writes: ''“I have agreed to unblock User:Rafaelsfingers on condition that they become a member of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, and use only one account. Further trouble without signs of progress should result in a speedy reblocking.”''

After these users were warned about the appearance of their editing, and asked to change that, they have. They have been productive editors, as well. So the only real problem here is the continued bad faith mud slinging by ideological opponents who seem to think Wikipedia is more a battlefield to push a POV than a collaborative project to build a reputable encylopedia. Notice the continued attempts to build this case by Ultramarine: And:

Now, as to the evidence, although its already been discussed and settled, I’ll bring up just a few critical points that cast reasonable doubt. I called it smoke and mirrors, and in many this is magic show (a misuse of magic!),  including the old “pick a card’ trick.
 * The Evidence

For instance, quotes are selectively taken out of the talk page discussion about the same issue to point to near identical statements to prove the allegations of socket-puppetry. Yet, here is the trick: if you look at the context of the discussion of all editors talking about it, every single one can be found making the same comment! This is the classic fallacy of cherry picking, and the trick is exposed one you see that the full deck of cards are all the same!

For example from the talk page in question:

“…not all of the deaths can be blamed on the US.”--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

“That source says the U.S. initiated it, not that it was solely responsible for all of it….”BernardL (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

“You are arguing that everyone thinks that the US was responsible for all the deaths…” Ultramarine (talk) 18:38, 24 April 200

“…nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths…. BernardL (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So in this context, its not surprising that we find the other two editors involved, myself and Dr.Gabriela making the same statements, addressting the straw man fallacy being advanced by Ultramarine. In fact Dr.Gabriela has to make the statement twice, and only raises it to all caps, after he ignores her point.

Also, keep in mind that its not uncommon for one editor to copy another if the same issue/argument remains side-stepped. Ultramarine is a classic case of WP:TE, WP:OWN, and Wiki-lawyering. So often times many editors must repeat themselves, and a convenient quick way to do that is to copy and past what other editors have already said. For instance, notice this:

"“Now Ultramarine thinks this little quip from Ferguson is so important that it should go into several articles where there is neither evidence of commentary by Pinter nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths. He has inserted the same quote in this civil war article, in Foreign Policy of the United States, in 1954 Guatemalan Coup D'etat, had formerly inserted it into Allegations of States Terrorism Committed by the United States, and Church Committee and who knows where else. The Polity Data information is inserted in pretty much the same places too!”BernardL (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)"

And here is my post:

"“It certainly is not so important that it should go into several articles where there is neither evidence of commentary by Pinter nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths. Since there is no consensus for this material I will remove it, unless some valid arguments are made, or consensus changes. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)”"

Does this make me a socket-puppet of BernardL? Of course not. The same goes for my using references first provided by Dr.Gabriela. I looked up the source and then used the references in other articles. Yes, I admit using these quality reliable sources, which I verified (as I always do) which were brought to my attention first by her posts. If they are good and needed in other article, then I use it. This is evidence of borrowing, not socket-puppetry. I also point out she has been editing since last year, and in an area that I never edit in. She seems to have some medical knowledge, for example. I'm not a doctor.

To continue, I call this a magic show because it does distorts reality—not just through omission and removing context, but also of due to fabrication, too. For instance, it is claimed that it’s a strange coincidence that I said what the other editor said, almost exact. But, if you looked at what I really wrote (and not what Ultramarine claims I did), one can see that I was indeed quoting the other editor! Ultramarine convenient leaves that out, while pretending it’s a mystery. What I really wrote was: "For instance, as the other editor pointed out, you remove "historian' despite what the sources say." I was clearly referencing the other editors statement, so the outcome is quite expected, not strange as if I had come up with it on my own. Yet, Ultramarine conveniently misquotes me by removing the relevant wording. And, as we all know the term cherry picking a well-known logical fallacy and the term is employed frequently.

So has there been some mimicry among editors dealing with Ultramarine? Yes. Also, I do confess that some of the editors made me feel a little uncomfortable and I did raise the issue via e-mail to another editor that the appearances of socket-puppetry was a concern when I first noticed what could look suspicious, which I think can be provided, if needed, as evidence of my innocence. However, it should be pointed out all these allegations rest on only appearances which can be explained by good faith alternative explanations. References to my ancient past (by wiki-standards) should not be relevant. I was given a blank slate, and have adhered to all the rules in good standing. I point out that Ultramarine has gone through arbitration for “sterile edit warring” yet continues to engage in that behavior (but this is cause for a separate arbcom case).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:B#Giovanni33: I will also point out that Ultramaine’s false claims of socket-puppetry have recently extended to accusing established editors who he was edit warring with, and falsely claimed they were all new accounts to an admin. This was easily shown to be false, of course. Here are these “new” accounts: Editing since 2005 with thousands of edits:29 May 2005 Dr.Gabriela has edited since July of 2007:, and this editor since May 2006:. Also, I just discovered this early edit by Dr.Gabriela that appears to be in Tagalog: consistent with their edits on Philippine articles. Again, this not related to any of my edits, and I do not speak Tagalog.

About the locations, my understanding is that this is within an area of 50 miles? I would not call that close, and I have had a few edit conflicts when attempting to leave message on the talk page at the same time as they have. As far as sharing a similar POV, this is not out of the ordinary for the SF Bay Area. This is very densely populated area that is has one of the highest concentration of progressives. Also, there is now nothing disruptive occurring with these accounts being closely watched. They are contributing the the project in a positive manner, as I am. This is more than can be said of Ultramarine. For all I know Ultra is a CIA agent working through Freedom House and has targeted me for elimination by seeding various other accounts within proximity to create the set-up of an appearance of socket-puppetry. But I am no conspiracy theorist, although it's no coincidence that WP's right wing has wanted me banned for years now. Likewise, the conspiracy that I am master-minding all this should be also be dismissed in absence of any hard evidence. Instead, I choose to take the common sense middle ground taken by other admins already: assume good faith, give appropriate warnings with conditional unblocking and keep monitoring. That is what was done with these other accounts, and it seems to be working. Ultra needs to stop fishing and "battling" in WP.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: addendum to this statement have been trimmed, and are located on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33. Anthøny  22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept. Kirill (prof) 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. Editor behaviour only, no content issues, and that includes article titles. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Accept. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Sockpuppetry
1) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited.

''Passed 9-0 at 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Proxy editing
2) The use of proxy editors—individuals recruited to perform particular edits under the private direction of another party—is prohibited. This includes both simple cases, where one person might be asked by another to make an edit, as well as more complex arrangements, where an entire group of people is recruited to make edits desired by an individual or group.

''Passed 9-0 at 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Coincidental proxies
3) In cases where multiple user accounts are acting with a similar modus operandi, it is often impossible to determine if they are accounts are operated by a single individual, proxy editors coordinating their actions externally, or even unrelated individuals who coincidentally happen to have shared interests and behaviors.

''Passed 9-0 at 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerted disruption
4) In cases where multiple user accounts appear to be a group of sockpuppets or proxy editors acting in concert to disrupt Wikipedia, measures may be taken against them collectively, regardless of who may actually be operating them.

''Passed 9-0 at 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33
1) There is sufficient evidence to conclude that has repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing.

''Passed 9-0 at 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33's proxies
2) A number of accounts have been identified as likely sockpuppets or proxies of Giovanni33, including, but not limited to, BelindaGong, CleanSocks, DrGabriela, FionaS, Freethinker99, HK30, Kecik, Mercury2001, MikaM, NeoOne, NPOV77, Professor33, Rafaelsfingers, RTS, and Supergreenred.

''Passed 9-0 at 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Giovanni33 banned
1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

''Passed 9-0 at 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Proxy accounts banned
3) All accounts identified as likely sockpuppets or proxies of Giovanni33 in the findings of this decision, as well as any account subsequently identified by an administrator as a likely sockpuppet or proxy of him, are banned from Wikipedia until such time as the ban on Giovanni33 is lifted.

''Passed 9-0 at 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Logging of bans
1) All bans imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33.

''Passed 8-0 at 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * and indef blocked by  17:55/6 July 6 2008. Based on Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33 as per Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. -- Avi (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * blocked as a sock indef, same as above entry. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked indef a sock, . Jehochman Talk 07:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * , account apparently created to advance G33's position in an editing dispute, blocked as a likely sock/proxy. MastCell Talk 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * blocked as an apparent sock of G33, per this report. MastCell Talk 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * blocked as a suspected G33 sock. MastCell Talk 03:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * identified as a likely IP sock of Giovanni33; IP hardblocked as a suspected open proxy (see Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33). MastCell Talk 21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)