Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giovanni33/Archive

Evidence submitted by John Smith's
is a sockpuppeteer both indefinitely blocked and banned by the Community - he had a one year ban from ArbCom that has expired since the date of the decision, though there were numerous violations afterwards of sockpuppeting. appeared less than a month ago and starting editing a number of articles that whilst Giovanni33 hadn't edited, portrayed a classic Giovanni habit of knowing how to edit Wikipedia and of Wikipedia rules. For example, knowing the importance of referencing in Wikipedia, reliable sources, the anti-vandalism rule (using the phrase "rvv"), etc. Perhaps more significantly the ip user inserted criticism of a book, Mao: The Unknown Story, from an obscure critic (Gao Mobo) that Giovanni was very hot on including in the past. Indeed he was the only person to know of Gao Mobo or his publications.

Of course it might not be Giovanni33, but this points towards a well-established user who may well be banned. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I meant for this to have a checkuser request too, but I used the wrong box. If an admin/clerk could decide whether this warrants a checkuser and modify it accordingly, I would appreciate it. I have already requested User:Tiptoety to do this, though I am not sure when he/she will be back online to consider it. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Request for CheckUser

 * Requested by John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * . Little evidence that this is actually Giovanni, and "could be another blocked user" is fishing. GrooveDog FOREVER 16:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
No action taken. I concur with GrooveDog; also, I cannot even establish any connection via behavioral evidence. A check would have been out of the question anyways, as Giovanni33 is very. (P.S. the correct code letter would have been "A", but IMO code letters have outlived their purpose in sock investigations anyways.) MuZemike 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

09 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

The account BernieW650 was set up by the ip. Both Bernie and Giovanni33 are from San Francisco and both have been involved in editing the article United States and state terrorism and its talk page from a similar point of view, arguing that the US has been involved in state terrorism. TFD (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I am unfamiliar with the history of this other user so I am unable to offer much comment about any association that has raised this suspicion. I assume its a legitimate concern. I can say that I am from San Francisco and of course have attempted to work on improving this article. However, its misleading to say I've argued from "a similar point of view, arguing that the US has been involved in state terrorism." I have not offered a view about the subject matter of Terrorism and the United States. I have argued that our personal views on a subject matter have no place on Wikipedia. This is not a forum. And certainly I have not argued "that the US has been involved in state terrorism." BernieW650 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The routine use of the SPI noticeboard based upon two or more users disagreeing with TFD is part and parcel of the problematic behaviour from which TFD narrowly escaped a lengthy topic ban on all articles remotely related to Eastern Europe and Communism (Digwuren). Absent any actual evidence of socks being used, the record is that well under a third of these accusations have ever been found to be accurate. SPI is not a fishing hole, and ought not be treated as one. Collect (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In this case TFD may be onto something. the additional evidence below is intriguing, to say the least.  Jehochman Talk 03:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When “BernieW650” states “its misleading to say I've argued from "a similar point of view, arguing that the US has been involved in state terrorism." His edits on the page tell a different story.



        
 * As Giovanni33


 * as DrGabriela


 * as Rafaelsfingers

  
 * as Supergreenred

  
 * as Olawe

    
 * as Special:Contributions/76.102.72.153


 * Special:Contributions/76.126.64.74
 * Special:Contributions/67.180.59.86
 * Special:Contributions/67.188.208.203
 * Special:Contributions/67.188.208.91
 * Special:Contributions/71.204.160.68
 * Special:Contributions/71.204.160.68
 * Special:Contributions/64.118.111.137
 * Special:Contributions/64.118.113.49


 * There are more, indeed there are probably over a thousand edits by Giovanni33 and his various sock puppets have made edits with identical content on Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and United States and state terrorism. The latest edits by BernieW650 absolutely do support the same point of view. Giovanni33 was obsessed with the United States and state terrorism article. It’s still in his sandbox. He also created the section on the atomic bombing of Japan as state terrorism and has reverted it's deletion so many times and skewed consensus with so many sock puppets that it's inclusion is a victory for cheating the system.


 * BernieW650's first action was to post something on both his account page and his talk page to get rid of the red font, indicating that he had experience in account creation. Obviously he’s an experienced editor familiar with WP policies since he made references to AfD, good faith, POV, etc. His IP account is registered to Comcast Cable; San Francisco Giovanni33 used  Comcast Cable; San Francisco for many of his puppets. He went from an IP with 2 blocks  and warnings about civility after a short period of editing to BernieW650. Giovanni33 created dozens of single purpose accounts primarily to support his efforts. BernieW650  has been, basically a single purpose account focused on the restoring the same material to the same article as those SPA,s were.


 * Anyone looking this over should have a look at
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#DrGabriela
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Giovanni33
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rafaelsfingers
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive443&oldid=224185163#Giovanni33
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Giovanni33
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop


 * There are also linguistic similarities, ie claiming content is "long standing" as well as similarities in the tactics these users employ, ie Repeatedly claiming consensus when there hasn't been.


 * It should also be noted that BernieW650 is adding the same content to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just like Giovanni33 who, along with his sock puppets inserted similar POV from the same author into that article as well.

V7-sport (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, ComCast San Francisco is one of the largest ISPs in the USA. Wikipedia has a huge number of editors from that ISP. TFD's batting average for fishing  is abysmal. Once in a while he hits - but sometimes for a different "sock master" than he had even asserted. This case lacks evidence, and is fishing of the first order. Collect (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

5 March 2011 Stinky pete-  fishing. Innocent. 26 Feb ERIDU-DREAMING. Legal use of IPS. 20 Feb A50000 accused of being Marknutley. Unrelated. 26 January Jprw accused of being Yorkshirian. Rejected. 30 Nov 2010 Learn from it. accused of being Bullet dropper. Untrue. Zero people blocked for his last five accusations. Sounds like a fish. Swims like a fish. Collect (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't fishing. This user is employing the same tactics on the same edits from the same location and ISP to restore the same content as a previous blocked user.V7-sport (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh?  We see the biggest ISP in the entire US.  Not a little operation in Podunk. So scratch the "same ISP" as meaning anything much at all.   And the dang edits are not the same. scratch point number two.  And the subset of articles is not a huge overlap. Scratch number 3 as well.  Could the editor be a sock? Sure.  Is there any actual evidence given? Not one whiff.  And the complainant has a particularly bad losing streak here.   Not a single person blocked as a result in the past six months or more, and four registered editors being unfairly tarred as a result by the accusations.   I fear we are headed for five. Collect (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comcast has 17 million high speed Internet users. I suggest that this is a substantially large pool to assert that people are "related" in any way. Collect (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. There is no actual evidence when all three "reasons" that are given turn out to be inconsequential or flat out false. It doesn't take much critical thought to see this. BernieW650 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have an issue with TDF. I don't think it's relevant to the current investigation. Bottom line, same edits (and yes, look at the diffs provided) being done in the same city from the same ISP from a SPA as so many of Giovanni33s sock puppets. Had TFD not launched the investigation I would have and this would be my first. V7-sport (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I strive to have no "issues" with anyone, as a simple matter of fact. You are welcome, more than welcome, to see User:Collect/watchlisted articles. I do have a problem with SPI misuse since the Climate Change brouhaha about "Scibaby" false accusations where ArbCom found that a 20% false accusation rate was "high." I suggest you read those ArbCom proceedings if you are interested. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is much here regarding Giovanni33 but I fail to see the connection to myself. I reverted the deleted material removed by V7-sport, without respect to its point of view. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of that point of view. In fact, I also restored included views that argue the atomic bombings are not State Terrorism but viewed primarily as an act of war. My edits show only that I'm against removing material that is well cited and relevant to the topic without discussions and agreement for doing so. I note I'm not the only editor who opposes these large deletions, either. And I am not the only editor who recognizes these changes are being made without consensus.


 * Regarding moving some material to the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article it links to, I note that the material I moved there is different than the material that was added by Giovanni33, cited above. Sport V7 falsely states it was the same content. The reason I did move some of the content to the main debate article was so that we could continue to trim down the article without losing content within Wikipedia. We were making progress in trimming some of the bloat in the direction SportV7 was advocating, and I was willing to work with him in doing so, but I wanted to see that the content was moved to another appropriate home. Unfortunately, this progress ceased when the edit warring resumed, and SportV7 was blocked for it having already a been blocked multiple times for the same violations.


 * In response to my being familiar with policy, that is true. I read through all the policy pages carefully after I was blocked once, as an IP editor (I've edited off an on as an IP editor, previously from Stanford, previously). Sport V7 says I was blocked twice. That is false. I was blocked once. After that I made myself familiar with the policies so as not to run afoul of them. Basically, I learned my lesson, after that one block. I also have edited on a number of other articles. I'm not here for a single purpose, unless it is to contribute to making Wikipedia a source for free knowledge by improving articles. BernieW650 (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * IP60.51.132.189 has recently made an edit similar to BernieW650. Since this IP appears to be an OP, I have filed a report at WP:OP.  TFD (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 60.51.132.189 is a proxy/mail server in malaysia. And yes, it's the same material that BernieW650 has been restoring with nearly an identical edit summary. Giovanni33 also used Malaysian proxy servers, IP# 60.51.132.189 V7-sport (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that he didn't, but I couldn't find anything stating that Giovanni used that exact IP (if he did, it's probably him, and the IP should be blocked). Can you point to where you found this information? The IP is owned by the largest ISP in Malaysia, by the way, and is not a "proxy" server as far as I can tell. It is a mail server, but that's not surprising since many ISPs offer email to their customers. Anyway, please share where you found that Giovanni used this IP. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * http://60.51.132.189/ It's a web server, and highly likely to be used as an anonymising proxy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I was just curious where he got the information the Giovanni33 had used this specific IP, because I couldn't find that information anywhere. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

V7-Sport: I see a lot of evidence that Giovanni33 had a bunch of sockpuppets, but we knew that already. What I don't see is any evidence other than "They are both from San Francisco, and edited the same article (3 years apart)" that BernieW650 has anthing to do with Giovanni33. To reduce the clutter on the page, could you perhaps remove anything that you don't have a specific reason for including in a SPI about BernieW650? That is, you've posted a bunch of links but very few, if any, of them give any indication of why you think they constitute evidence that Bernie is a sock of Giovanni. Could you please clarify these points, and remove any links that you don't have a particular reason (besides making it appear that there is a case besides them both living in San Francisco) for adding. It will make it a lot easier for people to focus on things that are relevant to this SPI. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

V7 look at and  -- making accusations against everyone you have a dispute with is unwise, and especially when you were specifically blocked for edit warring on the article in question. Read WP:BOOMERANG at some point. Collect (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That might have had some validity had I ever made such an accusation before. Indeed, I have never filed a sock puppet investigation, including this one.V7-sport (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The complainant here is TFD, and the comment about all the invalid SPI complaints is applicable to him. You only were blocked for edit war on the article. Collect (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Risker's comments below...if the editing is problematic then an administrator can be asked to intervene and block if necessary...HOWEVER...it would be a shock to think that Giovanni33 disappeared considering the fact that Giovanni33 used multiple socks to evade being banned...used these socks to votestack and edit war and indeed was draw to these same articles as BernieW650 is and is promoting the identical POV, tactics and POV pushing as Giovanni33 did...I would be extremely surprised to find out this is a DIFFERENT editor.--MONGO 23:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC) The more I look at BernieW650's editing history, the more I become convinced he is Giovanni33...that is the way I see it...if I am wrong, I apologize.--MONGO 00:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just had a partial admission that this user has been using other IP addresses. "I'll save you guys the trouble. Its me Bernie. I just didn't log in. Both those IP's are mine. I'm a member of the Stanford community as I previously disclosed, and I often like to edit anonymously." V7-sport (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty worthless -- not an IP listed above, and is from Stanford University and not ComCast SF, and, unless Giovanni33 was at Stanford, totally meaningless.    This page is chock full of meaningless stuff now, and nil evidence. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

IP67.169.68.203's first post is praise of the article United States and state terrorism, where he writes, "I was looking for information about the Atomic Bombings of Japan as an act of State Terrorism from a discussion of that topic in my graduate class today, on the anniversary of that horrible act.... not discussed in our mainstream media (but what do you expect from US media?" His next three edits are to articles, including an edit description, "fixing bot error".  His seventh edit is a reversal of an edit that was deleted with the notation, "Legitimate sourced link and relevant. Not spam".  All of this shows a familiarity with how Wikipedia works, indicating previous experience.  The IP then gets blocked 31 hours for "vandalism" and makes two unblock requests, saying, "I'm relatively new to WP" and "I heard there is an arbitration committee that I might be able to appeal to?"  Again this does not appear to be the actions of a new editor, occuring on his third and fourth day of editing (only two edits on the first two days), although he claims to be new. After making minor edits, the IP then jumps into an edit war, restoring the history section of United States and state terrorism. Both Giovanni and the IP also have an interest in connecting the topic with Japan. Notice also the similarity in writing style:
 * Good work, btw. I came back to work some more on it and noticed that you have already done a fine job.Giovanni33 (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Good work guys. This is one of the best articles I've read in Wikipedia in a long time.

TFD (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Would somebody please step in and put and end to the senseless quibbling? We need checkuser help. Are there any present or should I lobby Arbcom to appoint some more? Jehochman Talk 02:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jehochman aren't you yourself involved in all of that? IQinn (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who said I wasn't? I'm posting here as an invitation for a checkuser to finally look at this after three days. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he was referring to the "senseless quibbling" bit. If you were referring to the article, you've been heavily involved with the quibbling there. If you are referring to this SPI, you are heavily involved as well (being the person that suggested in the first place). Saying "Would somebody please step in and put and end to the senseless quibbling?" would insinuate to many people that you are not involved in the quibbling yourself. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I weren't involved, I'd put an end to the senseless quibbling, and I'd block the sock puppet(s) myself. Jehochman Talk 17:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Both IPs are . If you need a CU, please add |curequest to the spi case status. Editors need to restrict themselves to presenting evidence only. Disputes should be on the appropriate talk pages. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  03:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Noting, in passing, that I've blocked one of those IPs as a likely anonymising proxy, without checking the others. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Anonymous proxies come and go at various IPs. It could be one day, and not the next. Jehochman Talk 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the editors behind the IPs are behaving disruptively, treat them accordingly. It matters not whether or not they are socks of a banned user in this case, and there is no reasonable prospect that the IPs will be blocked for extended periods of time even if they are being used by a banned user.  Risker (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And what about ? Giovanni33 has been disrupting this article for ages through various socks. The community has failed to get a handle on it. Jehochman Talk 13:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The data on Giovanni33 was stale in 2009, and it is still stale now. We have nothing with which to compare BernieW650, at least not to make a useful link to Giovanni33. (Checkuser data tables only go back 3 months.) If he is behaving significantly disruptively, the usual sanctions can be applied. Risker (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about an uninvolved administrator takes a look at the copious behavioral evidence above and make a decision? Jehochman Talk 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Um -- no evidence presented = fishing expedition from the get-go. Why prolong an unsubstantiated and contested accusation?  Do you think another admin will magically find pixie dust to warrant any action?  Time to close this one up entirely IMO.  Collect (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been plenty of evidence presented, This editor is employing the same tactics on the same pages and using the same verbiage from the same area as the previously blocked Giovanni33 and there has already been a proxy edit backing his efforts. V7-sport (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, everybody out of the Checkuser/Clerk/Patrolling admin section, please, unless you're actually one of the aforementioned. SPI discussion belongs above the line. There may (or may not) be sufficient information in contribution histories to establish a pattern; however, with fewer than 100 edits per account in most cases, and with one of the main similarities being the addition of a rather common and easily reliably sourced philosophical viewpoint (that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a form of state terrorism), this one is not going to be easy to prove. Again, if the editing is disruptive (not just voicing an unpopular but reliably sourced perspective), the usual processes for managing such editing will still apply.  Risker (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A decision please
There is an accusation and evidence posted about regarding BernieW650. Would an uninvolved administrator please review the evidence and make a determination whether that is the banned editor Giovanni33, returning yet again with another sock puppet, or not. Many thanks. Jehochman Talk 17:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on behavioral evidence I've blocked BernieW650. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

24 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Brand new account, very first edit is to the talk page of United States and state terrorism, where Giovanni33 has been heavily involved, and has used socks on in the past. The new editor is talking about the "consensus" that has existed on the talk page for "months" and "years", indicating that he has been around for longer than since when he created the account. He is also using terms like "deletionists" (which is not likely to be a term that someone would know, had they not been editing for a while) and the phrase "axe to grind" (which, although a common idiom, is also a well-known Wikipedia essay). He is also saying that the deletionists are "striking again" (indicating that he's been around when they "struck" before). Given the repeated problems with socking on this page by Giovanni, I think it would be worth having a Checkuser run on his account. Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

It seems a likely sock, based on his arguing in favor of an earlier version of the article and arguing from a U.S. liberal viewpoint. The familiarity with WP procedures, including the use of terms such as "edits" shows he is likely an experienced editor. Also, the choice of name seems likely to cause offense to other editors. TFD (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Good work guys. ...not discussed in our mainstream media (but what do you expect from US media?)....
 * I have serious issues with most of the deletions and edits that have occurred in the last few months. The changes have clearly been politically motivated edits by people with a political axe to grind....

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Too similar to the socks in the previous SPI case. Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 07:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)