Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni33




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Giovanni33

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by Yaf 04:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 appears to be the puppet master coordinating a tag team of 2 puppets for his edits to avoid 3RR violations and to avoid problems in soliciting others to affect consensus through a similar tag team consensus influence peddling effort on the article State terrorism by the United States. Suspected puppetmaster Giovanni33 never exceeds 2 edits per day to avoid appearing to near a 3RR violation. Puppet 68.93.143.57 also makes edits to the article, while never exceeding 2 edits per day to avoid nearing a 3RR violation. A second puppet, 69.150.209.15, then solicits others to affect consensus, leaving a message of:
 * Evidence
 * "==Might be interested==
 * I noticed that you took part in State terrorism by United States of America discussion for deletion. After the article has survived many deletions, you may be interested that there is a user right now who is deleting large portions of the article. 69.150.209.15 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)"

There were 17 of these messages left by this puppet between 17:42 14 May 2007 (UTC) and 18:16 14 May 2007 (UTC) as visible here. As for the tag teaming of edits to avoid 3RR, see for example:
 * 1st revert: 04:28 14 May 2007 by 68.93.143.57
 * 2nd revert: 16:36 14 May 2007 by 68.93.143.57
 * 3rd revert: 18:34 14 May 2007 by Giovanni33

No 3RR violation, technically speaking, but still a violation of sock puppetry to achieve a POV end while attempting to game the system.

Giovanni33 has a long history of sock puppetry. His prior history on these issues is repeated here for convenience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive121#User.3AGiovanni33_again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#Giovanni33_once_again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#Giovanni_Part_One http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#Giovanni_Part_Three

The issue here is more than a simple content dispute. The present article is POV pushing at its worst. Giovanni33 even makes the case that he is writing an attack article against the United States through pushing his POV, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=130877307.

Coupled with sock puppetry to push his POV agenda, there is clearly a need for something to be done administratively to stop the (continued) sock puppetry to push a POV agenda towards writing an attack article against the United States.


 * Comments
 * For the record, I deny the puppety charge and welcome an IP user check as is deemed appropriate by any admin. I've done nothing improper. This user has lost the debate, and failed to gain consensus for his strong POV issues, as is evident on the talk page; Thus his wholesale deletions of sourced material have been correctly reverted by other long established users, and once by myself. The anon IP user has no connection with me whatsoever.


 * I also note the user has been dishonest, not only with the arguments he had made on the talk page for deleting the sourced material (hence his evolving reasons, a new one being created after each time its shown to be false, and citing a different source than the one actually provided for in the article to claim the statement does not reflect what the source says, etc), but now he is falsely accusing me of saying that I actually made the case that I'm writing an attack piece to push my POV. That is pure nonsense. As anyone can see, I was making the point that our POV's should not enter into consideration (regarding the allegations of US State Sponored Terrorism), but rather we should only be concerned about reporting what legitimate sources claim. Since he shared his POV, I did as well, but advised that we need not concern ourselves with our own personal political povs. To twise this into a claim that I said I'm creating an attack article is just more dishonesty.Giovanni33 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A host of Single purpose accounts seem to be getting created to edit just this one article, in accordance with Giovanni33 styles of editings. They sure look like sock puppets. Yaf 04:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * False. You have only shown the IP address from the same school, which is probably the same person logging in the the school PC using a dynamic IP address. There is no pretence of this anon IP user pretending to be more than one person, nor any connection to myself, style or otherwise.Giovanni33 06:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And you know this how? Arbcom discussions in the past have generally indicated that single purpose accounts that are created during a content dispute which support only one editor's viewpoint are generally considered to be meat puppets and/or sock puppets. Yaf 07:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Its common sense. I can look at their edits and its all from the same place. And, no, they are not single purpose accounts just created. The main account has about a thousand edits covering many subjects, so this is a valid member of the community desite what you say.Giovanni33 18:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the contributions of all these puppets has been on one article, only, definitely single purpose accounts, in support only of Giovanni33. One student acting as a puppet is still a puppet, even if she is in San Antonio during the week (and in Houston on the weekend), even if the puppet master is perhaps controlling remotely via e-mail or cell phone calls.  Yaf 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not what I see here: This user was editing before I ever came to this article, on April 24th. And, I came here on May 15th. This user has edited on many articles, starting last year in Sept.Articles I never have been to. Very little connection at all, in terms of what I see from his edits and mine. If this were a puppet connection it would have shown itself with some history behind it, and I would have called the puppet to help me instead of vise-versa, no? The speculations are not logical. In reality I've long given up any puppetry--its all in my past only. I'm a firm believer in following the rules of WP.Giovanni33 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies on Meatpuppets is contained at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Meatpuppets relative to them not being considered members of the Wikipedia community. Yaf 04:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm familiar with these policies but they don't pertain to the facts of this situation, unless you argue simply being an IP user means they are not a real user? That is not a rule.Giovanni33 04:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not arguing that at all. Many valid edits come from IP users testing the waters before deciding to get a named account. We never want to bite the newbies. -- For the "vote stacking" IP soliciting support for your view, yes, it does have a prior history of edits, many of which though are on Christian and similar religious topics which you do have quite a bit of history on :-)  None of the other puppets have any prior WP editing history, before just showing up in the last few days  to be single purpose accounts, with an agenda on editing just the State terrorism by the United States article in accordance with your views. These are all clearly Meat puppets, which by policy are to be treated as if just one individual. By the way, it is generally not considered good form to remove sockpuppet taglines placed on the talk pages of single purpose accounts during the time that a case is open on puppetry charges, as you did earlier tonight; some might consider this to be an attempt at removal of case evidence.  Once the case is closed, then, depending on the outcome, removal may then be proper. Yaf 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Soliciting for my view? But that was before my view was even known. And, I see no Chritian or related religious article where we crossed paths. In fact, I have no history on any of the Christian related topics that this user made edits on. And, looking at his edits, its not even clear that this user shared my POV on any of these articles--other than this one. Since a user check was done and shown to be not related, also goes against your theory. I don't see any basis for assuming any "meat puppetry" either. I would think its logical to assume given that the other IP addresses which all come from the same place (St. Mary's in Texas) to all be the same person, but I see no evidence that the different IP's even attempt to be different users, either. So, if they are the same, then this negates your argument that they were created as single user accounts--its just the same person at the same school not logging in, or that there is any puppety of any sort going on. I don't think you sticking those tags implicating me in them without any evidence at all (I'd take linguistic evidence even) as good form, until you have something more solid to go on. If you want, I know a very good linguist who has studied my writing patterns and could probably be a good source to convince you that I'm not these other people, if there was any serious thinking that I was. I don't think anyone thinks that except maybe you.Giovanni33 07:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions


 * I note that a user check was done on the above and resulted with a finding of "unrelated." If one does an IP trace it pulls up St. Mary's in Texas. I am in San Francisco.Giovanni33 01:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A traceroute was only done on two of the original puppets; none have been run since. Yaf 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if the others are checked, they will show no connection as well. I have nothing to fear with any checks.Giovanni33 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The evidence presented here is not strong, and the Checkuser result strongly suggests that the IPs are not Giovanni33. Divestment definitely looks like someone who's already been involved in the debate, but there's no strong evidence to tie that account to Giovanni33, so I'm closing this case with no action. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)