Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * 1) Blnguyen
 * 2) Charles Matthews
 * 3) FloNight
 * FT2
 * 1) Jdforrester
 * 2) Jpgordon
 * 3) Kirill Lokshin
 * 4) Matthew Brown (Morven)
 * 5) Paul August
 * 6) Sam Blacketer
 * 7) Thebainer

Inactive:
 * 1) FayssalF
 * 2) UninvitedCompany

Recused:
 * 1) Deskana

Clerks, please note that I am recusing on this case, due to the fact that I have previously brought a (rejected) case regarding Giovanni33 to the Arbitration Committee. --Deskana (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for logging this on-Wiki. I have adjusted the majorities for this case as appropriate; additionally, the master list on ACA has also been amended as appropriate. Anthøny  21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Initial FoF proposals
Leaving aside the fact that I disagree with Kirill's conclusions about the sockpuppetry, there are a couple of problems with the findings of fact and I think they need to be tweaked. The main issue is that we need some specificity with respect to chronology/time frame. No one would dispute FoF number one as worded - we all know Giovanni33 has engaged in sockpuppetry in the past and indeed he has admitted it. I assume he would not be banned because of sockpuppetry from two years ago, but rather because the committee decides that he is currently engaging in sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Likewise the second FoF is misleading. I know Giovanni has admitted to some or all of those socks (I don't know the specifics) other than the three recent ones (Supergreenred, DrGabriela, and Rafaelsfingers). The important evidence in this case has largely been about those three accounts. If the committee decides to ban Giovanni, it should be clear that it is for current sockpuppetry, not for sockpuppetry from two years ago (and if it's for the latter, that would A) Be odd; B) Need to be made more clear). I understand that the past socking is obviously a huge factor as it should be, but I'm assuming those on the committee who will support a ban will not have done so based merely on the old proven sockpuppetry.

I propose separating these out for the sake of clarity. This is not an idle or semantic concern. If Giovanni is banned and future Arb Committees review his case the findings here should be quite clear. So I would propose something more along the lines of the following (rough sketch):


 * 1) G33 has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry in the past (I would specify when actually) and admitted to this behavior. The following accounts were previously identified as likely sockpuppets of G33 (list all accounts except the current three).
 * 2) There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Giovanni33 has continued to engage in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing, specifically via the accounts Supergreenred, DrGabriela, and Rafaelsfingers, if not others. (I would note that it also matters whether the committee feels all, one, or two of the above three accounts are connected to G33. Most people agree that these are SPA's and almost certainly meat or sockpuppets, but the mere fact that they agree with G33 does not mean they are actually connected to him in a meat or sock relationship. If the committee feels all are connected to G33 then say so, similarly if just one or two then say so. The accounts should be considered separately from one another since evidence was presented in that manner (for example I presented evidence which suggests DrGabriela, and possibly the other two, is actually connected to User:Stone put to sky), not lumped in with all the previous sock accounts.)

Maybe they should be split up into three or four FoF's as opposed to two, anyhow something to that effect. Kirill's wording is, quite frankly, misleading in terms of the facts of the case. G33 has admitted to past sockpuppetry (in the relatively distant past in Wikipedia terms), has been accused again, and has vehemently denied it. The committee ought to establish that chronology and then, if it is their decision, explain that the believe G33 is currently engaged in sock/meatpuppetry. Precision is needed here, and I find that to be quite lacking in Kirill's proposed language, which lumps together a gaggle of accounts which are quite discrete across time and circumstance.

I hasten to add that I continue to believe it more likely that these accounts are not connected to Giovanni as per the evidence I presented. However if the committee feels differently I hope the findings of fact can at least be fleshed out in more detail.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The FoF is clear and correct.  Evidence is not taken in bit detail and then applied, rather it is the evidence in toto that is assessed for fact finding.  Broad findings of fact are preferable to minutae as they more clearly spell out the broad findings of the committee as they weighed the evidence in the context of applying policy.  Minutae in the ArbCom decision can only prolong the discussion beyond the final arbcom decision and that is not good for the project.  Spelling out detail in the decision is not a necessary part of the process so it is not encouraged.  The only reason to list these items for further review later down the line would be to appeal the process by which ArbCom members reached their decision.  This precedent would lead to a myriad of appeals based on minutae which, quite frankly, don't enter into the decision process and could possibly be misinterpreted by future arbcom panels as being important.  An example of a good Fof final decision 'Giovanni has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry'.  A bad FoF (too much detail), "Giovanni engaged in abusive sockpuppetry on June 15th at 11:00 am on article X with the accounts X, Y and Z."  It implies that the extra detail will somehow be relevant in the punishment.  The only thing that concerns the committee is that "Giovanni engaged in abusive sockpuppetry."  The detail  belongs in and, is included with, the evidence that ArbCom weighed.   As an analogy, juries return "guilty" or "not guilty" verdicts.  They don't load them down with "guilty of theft on june 15th with accomplices A,B,C"  That detail is left in the transcript and the view into the process of arriving at a guilty verdict and hte weight of the evidence applied is subverts the process as it becomes avenues for endless discussion, appeal, etc and is basically unnecessary.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about "minutae" or "bit detail," I'm simply talking about distinguishing between sockpuppetry from two years ago and current sockpuppetry. I'm obviously not saying anything about specific dates or times so I'm not sure why you are bringing that in. I don't see how making the FoF's more specific will "prolong the discussion" - the committee can now end the case as quickly as they please. As to "appeals," that has nothing to do with it. Kirill's language says the committee can review the ban after one year and decide to extend it or not (and presumably every year after that). It should be clear to future ArbCom members (and indeed to admins and other members of the community) what the exact basis of/history behind the ban was. This case was largely about current, not past, sockpuppetry and as of now the FoFs do not make it clear if the committee thinks G33 is still engaging in sock or meatpuppetry, rather than simply saying "he has engaged in sockpuppetry" which was well established before this case ever opened. That's not minutae, that's the heart of the case. It would be unbelievably simple to fix this and could still be written in two short findings of fact so I see no reason not to do so. I agree that "Giovanni engaged in abusive sockpuppetry on June 15th at 11:00 am on article X with the accounts X, Y and Z" would be a bad FoF but luckily I'm not proposing anything like that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A year from now, all his sockpuppetry will be at least a year old and will be considered old. There is no need to distinguish when an abusive sockpuppeteer engaged in puppetry.  The only purpose for that would be for the puppeteer to argue before a new arbcom that this ArbCom misinterpreted the evidence by wikilawyering the FoF.  What should happen is that, in a year from now, G33 appeals for reinstatement based on his intervening behaviour.  The finding of fact should broadly outline what behavior violated policy, not make distinctions that really serve no purpose except avenue of appeal and wikilawyering.  We have principles.  We have evidence pages and we have a simple, broad findings of fact.  We have policy.  We have a remedy.  We don;t apply each of these sections to a "Then" and "Now" approach.  Principles aren't stated as what they were when the first evidence was proposed.  Remedies aren't broken down into sentences that "run concurrently" or "4 months for sockpuppetry, 6 months meatpuppetry and 2 months for general disruption."  That detail would only be used to clog up the process with endless appeals about how each section is wrong.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And I agree, that sock/meat puppetry is the heart of the case and the finding of fact is that he engaged in it. The principles clarify why it is wrong and the context under which the FoF is relevant.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you are pontificating about things I never proposed (e.g. "Principles aren't stated as what they were when the first evidence was proposed" - I'm not talking about anything like that) and generally arguing with a straw man. The adjustment I am proposing has nothing to do with allowing a new "avenue of appeal and wikilawyering." You are making that up out of whole cloth. Obviously we disagree about just about everything relating to this case and that's not going to change so I am uninterested in discussing this further. ArbCom can choose to ignore my suggestion or not but either way I'm done debating this with you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see 's name explicitly added to the list of socks. It will save us the trouble of having to immediately file a WP:AE or WP:ANI to get him banned right after this case closes; he is an SPA with identical editing behavior to the others named (as my evidence makes clear). - Merzbow (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merzbow's evidence suggests the main connection between the two is that Olawe's Hawaiian ISP uses the same brand of dial-up modem and SuperRedGreen's ISP in California. I wish ArbCom would discouraging the witch-hunting here, as opposed to institutionalizing it which seems to be where the case is heading. -- Kendrick7talk 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You conveniently forget to mention Olawe's sole contributions to the encyclopedia have basically been to revert to G33's preferred versions on articles, after he exhausts his 1RR on them. If he lived on the Moon and connected telepathically to the Internet, this is still enough to block him as a meat. A fact of policy very inconvenient for G33 and his defenders, since no amount of videoconferencing and affidavits can unmake a meatpuppet. - Merzbow (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is insufficient, given that this is a new account, and given that he has only edited two articles that I can tell - not the many others that I edit, nor has he (or any of these other alleged socks you say follow me around like puppies) come to my aid in any of these other articles after I run out of my 1 revert. You conveniently leave out these facts. The fact is that a new editor has to start somewhere, and he will agree with someone/side on an article that is divided in conflict. By your standard this means that every new editor at one point in time can be banned as someones "meat" throughout wikipeida. Obviously this would be unjust and a violation of the assumption of good faith. Moreover, this in practice suppresses only one side of the conflict within the article for any new editors.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also object to this. Olawe is not a party to this arbcom case, has not been notified about it, has not had an opportunity to add evidence on his behalf, etc. Therefore its completely inappropriate to simply add him to the case retroactively, post-facto. However, it does show how this case is being used and intended by my prosecutors: they want to as a weapon/tool to effectively silence/ban any and all editors simply on the basis that they share a similar political POV on some politically charged articles. We have politically partisan admins who are involved in this, who abuse their tools to push their POV, and want to rid editors who put checks and balances on this effort, i.e. the concerted and disruptive attempts to remove from Wikipedia much scholarly information critical of US policies abroad simply because they don't personally agree with it.
 * That they now want to go after other editors simply because they have shown their political colors, and it no longer even necessary for them to even be from the SF Bay Area--any area will do: as long as they give away their political leanings they are targeted. To allow this kind of witch-hunt amounts to political persecution - in practice if not by design - and has no place within a project that only works through embracing Pluralism (political philosophy), consistent with our many policies and guidelines.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Involved admins?
This remedy is unacceptable as it does not explicitly bar involved admins from making these judgments. I fail to see why ArbCom would lower the standard in this particular matter. -- Kendrick7talk 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Giovanni33 invariably claims ANY admin that sanctions him is an "involved admin". The presence or absence of such a clause is irrelevant. Jtrainor (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not true. If an admin is not involved, then I don't claim it. It is an important rule that goes a long way to preventing admins abuse. It is interesting, though, and indicative of the weakness of the merit in the use of their tools, when they can't/or refuse to get an uninvolved admin to look at the facts and make a fair determination; admin tools are abused in this way for a reason, given they are often rebuked and risk being de-sysoped as a result. They don't take that risk lightly. To open the door to them, though, would invite blatant abusive with impunity.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a misrepresentation of the facts, Giovanni. All of the alleged puppets that have been blocked have been by uninvolved admins so far. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, WMC blocked several users, and he was involved. He also blocked on reasons that were evident with the editors he agreed with but took no action again. His actions were one sided against only those who were in dispute with his POV. This was established in the Rfc, and the arbcom case that was rejected.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the RFC that was de-certified? I don't recall anything of the sort being established. And if it was rejected, obviously the Arbcom felt it had no basis. Jtrainor (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I said alleged puppets, not any user. WMC has not perma-blocked anyone on these articles for being a puppet. That's what the remedy is about. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The remedy is about letting WMC hand out blocks on his opponents in content disputes? Yes, that's what I'm a little afraid of. Actually, worse yet, since this isn't even scoped to Category:Terrorism, this will basically let any admin anywhere on the project accuse any new editor of being G33, without the need for a WP:RfCU, evidence, or any of that messy business. This needs to be tightened up unless the intent is to start a new Great Purge. -- Kendrick7talk 03:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins can do all of that now and we're still only talking about 'yet another indef ban of Giovanni33.  If anything, we need more wording that makes it more difficult to overturn those blocks as Giovanni has been indefinitely banned and then had that ban overturned numerous times.  Maybe wording that encourages the indefinite ban and desyops admins that roll it back for both gio and his puppets.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Involved admins on any topic can already indef block anyone they want as a sockpuppet of G33 right now? If so, we clearly don't need the remedy then. Heck, why is there even a case here? Less due process, more gulags! Where can I sign up for my ban hammer, so I can start purging my enemies, especially before they purge me? This new face of wikipedia excites me, comrade! -- Kendrick7talk 07:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving my point that concern about involved admins banning anything that looks like G33 is silly and farfetched.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) The reason we can laugh about gag pages such as WP:Rouge admins is that we have a system of checks and balances in place designed to prevent real abuses; pointing to that page as justification for undermining that system misses the joke. Involved administrators who insist that having to start an AN/I thread is some insufferable burden are simply suspect in my eyes; and if it ain't broke, let's not fix it. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Only a small minority of people thought the Soviet effort to streamline the justice system was a bad idea, but after the purges, everyone thought it was a good idea or else. -- Kendrick7talk 18:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have so little faith in the community that an unjust block would stand? Admins have the ability to block anyone at any time.   Trivial process addendums to remedies only slows up the process here.  It doesn't change how the community reacts to involved admins making blocks and, regardless of wording here, involved admins would not be able to issue blocks. --DHeyward (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Renewing ban
Is this necessary? Customarily ArbCom sanctions have been capped at one year to allow people a second chance when they come back — this one seems to be jumping around that concept. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Check Giovanni's block log. He's long past his second chance. Jtrainor (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The block log is very bad, but not nearly as bad as it looks because of wheel warring over blocks and blocks which were later reversed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It still warrants a renewing ban in my view. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worse than it looks because he's been given many 2nd chance opportunities to self-revert before being blocked or had articles locked si it becomes moot and he avoids a block. --DHeyward (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are describing yourself more than me, with these points. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec with G33) Take a look at the log DHeywad - there is a significant amount of wheel warring over blocks by various admins, unblocks to reblock longer or shorter, etc. Probably about half or more of the stuff there are not actual blocks. That is a simple fact and I was simply stating it here for the record, not trying to start another endless, nonconstructive debate (notice I didn't even comment about the provision for renewal). I think we can take it as a given that you, John, Jtrainor and others (most of whom are Giovanni's content opponents) want the strongest possible remedy against Giovanni and that I don't think he should be banned. All of that is well established, so let's stop arguing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither am I but what you call a simple fact is no where to be found in his block log. I can only find one case of Wheel Warring and it was with Rebecca around July 2006.  I can find no blocks that were reversed though many had their durations changed which requires an unblock and reblock.   But to simplify, I will simply repost it wth the Wheel War and duration changes removed so we can see the true block log.  I've only kept legitimate blocks and removed retimers and other blocks.  Let me know if you disagree.


 * 0:50, June 24, 2008 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Arbitration enforcement: violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's ArbCom restrictions; slow edit warring @ New antisemitism)
 * 14:52, June 15, 2008 MastCell (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement: violation of ArbCom restrictions; breaking 1RR/week limit on Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism)
 * 13:02, May 16, 2008 Sam Korn (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 22:59, 16 May 2008 ‎ (reblocking until expiry of original block)
 * 12:54, April 13, 2008 Rlevse (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&oldid=205394563)
 * 15:05, January 8, 2008 Quadell (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33-John_Smith's#Log_of_blocks_and_bans)
 * 00:35, September 14, 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (edit warring across several articles)
 * 21:04, August 14, 2007 Heimstern (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Continued long-standing pattern edit warring, recently at Criticism of George W. Bush)
 * 22:04, June 28, 2007 Sanchom (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: You reverted four time in 24 hours and 30 minutes. You have been blocked before for 3RR and should understand the spirit of the policy is to prevent edit wars.)
 * 01:56, September 22, 2006 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (3rr on Zionism)
 * 15:28, August 11, 2006 MONGO (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (extending block from one week to one month due to ongoing revelations of sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser and failure to admit to using socks)
 * 02:41, August 8, 2006 MONGO (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (1 week, edit warring, insults, etc. feel free to extend block to indef)
 * 12:55, August 6, 2006 Deskana (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (revert warring)
 * 08:11, July 9, 2006 Wikibofh (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (24 hours: 3rr)
 * 09:37, June 29, 2006 Wikibofh (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (1 week: repeated 3RR and then sockpuppet with User:Professor33)
 * 09:22, June 29, 2006 Wikibofh (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (24 hours: 3rr)
 * 01:45, May 31, 2006 Humus sapiens (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (3RR at Talk:God)
 * 08:50, April 26, 2006 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3RR on Christianity)
 * 03:10, February 19, 2006 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours ‎ (repeated timewasting on WP:AN3)
 * 16:42, February 18, 2006 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 hour ‎ (timewasting on WP:AN3)
 * 19:30, February 14, 2006 MONGO (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Using sock puppet accounts to aviod 3RR)
 * 22:45, February 13, 2006 MONGO (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3RR violation)
 * 16:28, January 26, 2006 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giovanni33 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (3RR violations and edit warring. Take a cool off period. Use the talk page more and reverting less when yo uget back)

I think this is a very generous interpretation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very useful list and I fully concur after a quick look at it and G33's full block log, but it basically specifies what I was saying before so I don't think we really disagree here. I count 21 blocks in your list versus roughly 50 actions/blocks in G33's block log. Giovanni's block history is terrible as I said, I was merely pointing out that his actual log is misleading in terms of total number of blocks (more than twice as many as actually occured, which excuses nothing obviously). I would also note that only seven of those are in the past year (as opposed to the other 14 in the last year in a half) and most relate to G33's violations of his 1RR per week restriction, which was fully deserved and about which he has not been careful. The main criticism I have with Giovanni recently is his laxity with his 1RR restriction - not socking, since I don't think he has been doing that - but that has not been at all discussed in this case and even if it had I don't think it warrants a ban at this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty to bold those from when I first started in 2006, so they can stand out compared to what we see today. This is strong evidence that I have reformed myself as an editor, and learned much in all areas proving dramatic improvement and change. Yes, I still occasionally make mistakes, but never again have I made the egregious mistakes I did when I first joined the project in 2006. If we eliminate those, my block long is not so bad, and esp. considering all the times I have seen DHeward violate 3RR but luckily escaped being blocked (the block log, thus, is not a true indication of an editors behavior in any case).


 * My actual editorial conduct is good in that I always work collaboratively towards consensus, am open to compromise and put WP's policies and guidelines in the forefront. I am always civil, assume good faith, and work with reliable sources to produce quality, encyclopedic article content on our most controversial articles that many editors avoid. WMC calls my openness to discussion towards these ends by saying "I like to be chatty." Well, we need more editors who are willing to do more discussions about the articles issues, instead of simply reverting without engaging with what the sources say and how it relates to developing an article's content. When we do have that, i.e. editors acting as I do, by assuming good faith, willing to actually discuss things, and work toward and with consensus (and in a spirit of collaboration, i.e. give and take, compromises), then we see rapid progress with article development. In other words we need more editors to adopt editorial behaviors such as myself. Bigtimepeace is a model of this approach, one I've striven to emulate. So he can keep calling me "chatty" but I take it as a compliment, noting that my "chattiness" is focused on productive ends for resolving impasses for article development and generally doing what we are supposed to be doing here: writing a collaborative encyclopedia (the only reason I'm here in the first place).Giovanni33 (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you scared to bold all the 2006 blocks, and reverted me? Is is because it shows quite clearly how almost all of these blocks stem from two years ago? I'm not changing of any of your content, so what is your objection?Giovanni33 (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's an alternative view on G33's motivations, from G33 himself: "I may not be able to balance it but reason overpowers irrational jingoism. They know that which is why they have to rely on lies and underhanded tactics, perverting the rules and assassinating their ideological opponents. That viciousness is a true sign of both strategic weakness plus fear... I have some good contacts in the media but I want to see how this plays out... We shall see where this goes in the longer term." . You're obsessed with getting your way, to the point of prolific socking/meating, threatening media exposure, contacting lawyers, and demonizing your opponents. It's gone way too far. - Merzbow (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk about demonizing! Lets break your claims down a bit. First of all I was referring to editing articles, and you changed to subject to my defense of myself against these false charges. You claim I'm "obsessed with getting my way." Well, in regards to articles disputes, that is refuted by the fact that I frequently compromise and always go with consensus, even when it does not go my way. The Japan section that I originally suggested at first had no consensus. So I did nothing with it. It was months later when consensus changed in my favor (after I researched a dozen quality sources) that I proceeded forward with it, and did so in a manner that was a compromise. This pattern of compromise and respect for consensus is my standard practices on article content dispute. Many times I don't get my way, so I walk away, or just accept it. So to claim I'm "obsessed" with "getting my way" in some absolute sense is false on the face of it.
 * But what I am "obsessed with" is not allowing blatant falsehoods against my character in an attempt to ban me to stand. That would be a great injustice and no one should be allowed to get away with it. I would not use the word "obsessed" since that implies there is something excessive. In the pursuit of truth there is no "excess" unless you are content with lies at some point, against you? Maybe that is fine with you, but not for me. And, yes, the attacks against me, the stretching of evidence to make anything fit to the exclusion of everything else that does not fit, all to make a case, is indeed a sign of weakness. I strong case would not have to rely on such tactics but would look for exculpatory evidence and alternative theories equally. And, yes, this attack against me has gone too far, but my defense of it and refutation of it has not gone far enough. Giovanni33 (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let us put aside the issue of socking for now. If you "frequently compromise and always go with consensus", you would not be one of the very few editors to have been slapped with a 1RR/week restriction by ArbCom for precisely the opposite - an inability to compromise. - Merzbow (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats not true, either. I compromised with JohnSmith's on the dispute that led to the 1RR parole, which he received as well. The 1RR parole was not necessary but I have no complaints about it because I've always said no one should be edit-warring or reverting more than 1 or 2 reverts anyway. In my view only JohnSmith's edit warring needed to be checked, but in the interests of parity and fairness (and I used to edit war, again back in 2006), I accepted a shared penalty. As I maintained, there is no doubt that I made many mistakes when I first joined WP, but I have also proven an ability to reform and change those ways. Therefore, I should not now be penalized for these things of the distant past.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, Giovanni33-John_Smith's was closed in October 2007. The finding of fact that led to your 1RR was "Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring", containing a link to evidence showing numerous blocks for edit-warring up to late 2007 across many articles. Since then you have violated your 1RR numerous times. The audience, I'm sure, will draw their own conclusions about your willingness to edit collaboratively. - Merzbow (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So your position is that anyone providing evidence of your misdeeds is by definition conspiring against you or lying because you claim to have done nothing wrong? Jtrainor (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is not my view. I've stated before I believe there could be honest mistakes being committed, and I assume good faith. Also, I've never said I have done nothing wrong. Quite the contrary, I admit to many mistakes. I'm far from perfect. However, I have not socked again, since 2006. Anyone saying otherwise is simply not telling the truth. If such a falsehood leads to be being banned, that falsehood must be and will be overturned. I insist on nothing less.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this conversation, such as it is, could soon become even less edifying than it is already, but before that happens I suggest all parties sheath their rhetorical swords and go and do something constructive, be it helping out on Wikipedia, feeding your cat, or baking a delicious pie. This is a page to discuss and comment upon the proposed decision, not a forum for sniping, point scoring, or general recriminations. Either discuss the proposed decision or sit back and let the ArbCom do its job. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear what the ban is meant to punish
The ban has been proposed as a "remedy" but a remedy to what? The accusation listed are two: now the first per se is not enough for a ban at this moment unless it is specified that the sockpuppetry is not the old and already punished one but is a new sockpuppetry, but this seems to be covered in the second accusation. The problem of the second accusation is that it just talk about "likely" sockpuppets, so are we really going to ban someone for "likely sockpuppetry"?!? Can anybody carify this?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) the "evidence of sockpuppetry" without specification of time
 * 2) the existence of alleged "likely sockpuppets" in the present time
 * No, we are going to let an editor with an extreme agenda, history of sockpuppetry, a block log longer than my nephew's arm, and evidence of new sockpuppetry that comes out at about 99.99% likely continue to edit (seriously, read the evidence page in its entirety and compare the edits, again if necessary). After all, if any editor doesn't actually admit to being a sockpuppet, then we shouldn't ban this editor; granted, WP:SOCK becomes useless here, but it's a small price to pay to allow that .01%. BTW, I'm having fun watching Law and Order - I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of reasonable doubt, right? The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your view of the evidence ES, it remains the case that the wording of the remedies is far too general. If the committee feels G33 is currently socking or engaging in meatpuppetry (which has been the whole subject of this case) they should say so explicitly, rather than lumping all charges of sockpuppetry together (the past socking has been proven and indeed admitted to and clearly was not, I think we all thought, what this case was about). I'd really like to hear from a member (or members) of the committee on this, but this is the third substantive (and very much good faith) question I've asked on talk pages since this case began (the others relating to the scope of the case and the possibility for presenting "real world" evidence) without receiving so much as one reply from anyone on ArbCom. I know this isn't a very high profile case, but communication from committee members on talk pages has basically been nil, and when multiple direct questions are being asked by people actively participating in the case I think that is a problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, then, for the confusion in communication. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the past/present distinction as important here. The issue is that Giovanni33 is (a) known to have engaged in abusive sockpuppetry and/or proxy editing, and (b) under reasonable suspicion of continuing to engage in it.  It is impossible, generally speaking, to prove on a technical level that he's continuing to do so—it's not all that difficult to game the system such that there is no technical evidence of guilt, and perhaps even technical evidence of innocence—so we're left with comparing the accounts' behavior, which happens to be fairly disruptive.
 * The key point, then, is Principle #4. There is a group of disruptive accounts here that seem to be sockpuppets/proxies of Giovanni33.  Thus, we're going to get rid of the lot of them rather than wasting productive editors' time on trying to combat each one individually.
 * The collective presence of these accounts is no longer a net benefit to the project, in other words—regardless of whether any particular account can be conclusively shown to be a sockpuppet/proxy of Giovanni33—and thus their invitation to participate will be withdrawn. Kirill (prof) 00:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What evidence was there presented of "disruption"? Or is this just circular reasoning: G33 was disruptive because he socked, and he must be socking because he was disruptive. What I've seen is for the most part in G33 is an intellectual who brings an important minority view to the project. After the railroading of User:SevenOfDiamonds, another leftist, this starts to look like a pattern. I am not myself a leftist -- a visit to the Soviet Union in my youth cured me of that -- but I'm still a die-for-your-right-to-say-it liberal. I think the ones who are violating the spirit of WP:ENC are the ones, as un-puppeted as they may be, who are bending over backwards to violate WP:YESPOV and WP:PRESERVE so as to keep certain POVs out of the project. It's a shame that such behavior is given a pass, while Giovanni's addition of content seems to show he is here to write an encyclopedia. -- Kendrick7talk 01:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kendrick, if you want WP:SOCK to specify only equal numbers of miscreants from both sides of the political spectrum be banned in a given subject area, you need to open a discussion on that page's talk page, not here. Plus I recall defending FAAFA against notorious right-wing puppeteer BryanFromPalatine in the FreeRepublic case, which I certainly would not have done if the objective was to drive liberals from WP. Merzbow (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh demons carry away both you and your 'minority viewpoint' theory, Kendrick. There are no protected minorities around here-- either people follow the policies, or they get kicked out. Policy is apolitical. Jtrainor (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (@Krill) You say "It is impossible, generally speaking, to prove on a technical level that he's continuing to do so—it's not all that difficult to game the system such that there is no technical evidence of guilt" so finally it seems you are saying that you want to deliver a hard punishment to a user basing this sanction on a mere "guess", right? I must guess that in this wikipedia we do not have milestones liberal principles like "a person is innocent unless his guiltiness has been actually proved", we have instead "a person is guilty if arbcom suspect him to be guilty". Good to know.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what he said. Basically, this sanction, like all sanctions. is based on 1) the current level of disruption and 2) the likelihood that the disruption will continue.  It's obvious that the multiple accounts here are disruptive.  Giovanni33 is also disruptive to the point that dealing with his disruption is not outweighed by his contributions.  To wit, Gio is currently blocked for the second time in a week on request from editors and admins that haven't even commented here.  Banning Gio and his meat/sock puppets is a net benefit to building the encyclopedia and that's the purpose of editing here and is ultimately the test by which every editors privileges are weighed.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What youv say has no connection with the expressed proposed decisions. Actually there is nothing in the proposed decisions suggesting that Giovanni33 should be banned for a distruption not connected with the assumption that the "likely sockpuppets" are actually "true sockpuppets". The only accusations to him are about sockpuppetry but the only proven sockpuppetry is the old one and that sockpuppetry has no merit unless we are supposing that he engaged sockpuppetry again. And since there is no real proof (as Krill admitted) that he engaged sockpuppetry again to cite this in the proposed decision amount to ban him for a mere suspect (which is against elementary principles like Presumption of innocence). You would be right if the accusation would have been of simple disruprtion not connected with sockpuppetry but this is not the case.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. You left out "or proxies" of Giovanni33.  You also didn't read the principle that said proxies may be treated collectively.  Perhaps there should be a finding of fact that those proxies were disruptive but I think that it's obvious that they were.  Certainly there is a lot of latitiude and discretion in enforcing these principles and a 1 year ban is the severest.  However given Giovanni33's history, he has no latitude remaining.  Secondly, this is a private forum.  The transgressions that are addressed by banning are more akin to civil trespassing.  Imagine 5 teenagers hanging out at the mall causing problems and they get asked to leave and 1 protests that he is not with the other 4.  Yet every week all 5 show up.  Eventually, they all get asked to leave and it really doesn't matter whether or not the 5th teenager was with them, he's just asked to leave.  The shopkeeper doesn't need to hire private detectives to follow them around to prove they hang out together.  He only needs to know that the 5 teenagers show up together and that their presence doesn't help his business.  He simply wants them off his property and that's his right as a property owner.  --DHeyward (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We treat collectively (with respect to sanctions) people who engage similar sanctionable behaviour. But in this case the behaviour of Giovanni is not what is being claimed to deserve the sanction: the only accusations to him are sockpuppetry. There is nothing in the decision page suggesting that Giovanni has been disruptive whether or not the sockpuppets are actually sockpuppets so it seems very strange to pretend that the ban ment to punish an alleged diruption which is not mentioned at all and about which the arbitrators are not voting. Secondly the arbitrators are not in any sense comparable to "owners" of wikipedia and your comparison is therefore pointless.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks to Kirill for your reply, the motivation for which I certainly understand while still respectfully disagreeing with your view. I fully concur that the collective presence of the various sock-accused accounts is of no benefit whatsoever, but I do not think this is (necessarily) the case with Giovanni33 who, in order to be considered disruptive in the scope of this case, should be linked directly to these accounts. I don't think that connection has been demonstrated (and admittedly I'm relying on my evidence here) and as such find it troublesome that the committee would take an attitude of, "it may or may not be Giovanni, but it sounds close enough for a year long ban to be appropriate" (the tendency to use faux quotes for statements which I'm making up is a rhetorical tactic I can't seem to avoid of late, sorry about that!).

I can't help but think, and I could be wrong, that the committee has basically decided to ban Giovanni because he has violated multiple policies in the past (and to a lesser extent in the present). More than anything, he has been annoying in the minds of many (and advocated for an unpopular article, we must acknowledge this), and I wonder if this has been as much of a basis for the ban as the current sock accusations. I also see a noticeable difference - and where-I-here-choose-to-tread-I-know there be dragons - between this case and the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case, where past abusive sockpuppetry was documented and the more recent evidence for sockpupettry was overwhelming, yet the committee went only so far as a topic ban.

For G33's case we have an administrator (Ryan Postlethwaite) willing to serve as a mediator and G33 willing to ban himself from certain articles, along with some counter-evidence that the accounts in question were not connected to Giovanni. In contrast Mantanmoreland showed no contrition for (or even admission of) past mistakes (as Giovanni does), presented no remotely convincing counter-evidence, and had a far more convincing (I think this is objectively true) case presented against him. Yet MM was merely topic banned (and, we now know, continued socking afterward) while G33 is to be 1 year banned without any official finding about whether he is currently socking or not. Arguably the difference is that G33 already has a very long block log (which is utterly his fault), but I'm not sure that explains the difference in how these cases were handled.

I certainly see why the committee is headed where it's headed on this case, and Giovanni's own past behavior has put him in his current situation. However I also think the committee has quite likely got the facts wrong on this one, and even if not they have failed to clearly lay out "the facts" which is obviously a critical portion of any ArbCom case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's worth pointing out another difference between this case and the Mantanmoreland one: I played no part in the decision reached in the latter. Kirill (prof) 13:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that even similar case have to be considered "different" with rspect to deciding the sanctions when the arbitrators are different?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Arbs specifically stated in the MM decision that the result was not intended to serve as a precedent for allowing future sockpuppeteers like G33 off the hook simply because there is no conclusive CU. As I said before, anyone reasonably computer-literate with time and/or money to spend can render CU inconclusive. Also, once Jimbo starts submitting lengthy missives for the defense, like he did in MM, we can start drawing more parallels with that case. Finally, even sans the enthusiastic socking, G33 is a die-hard edit warrior, as his numerous blocks prior to G33-JS and the 1RR arising from such demonstrate. We all know he would be doing the same if not under 1RR, demonstrated by his continual willingness to violate even that remedy. - Merzbow (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I worry the result could end up more like the debacle with Mantanmoreland's arch-nemesis, User:WordBomb, where dozens of editors were either quietly banned or had their name drug through the mud on false suspicions that they were sockpuppets of WordBomb, most famously User:Piperdown and User:Cla68, who were among the few who stuck around to proclaim their innocence. ArbCom is still dealing with the repercussions from all that in another case. Not to mention the impact such false positives will have on G33 ever being given an opportunity to return. As I've said: it's better to err and give one person two voices, than give one person none. -- Kendrick7talk 02:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not giving one person two voices, it's giving them at four, five, six, and more voices, plus opening the floodgates for everyone else to start doing it also as long as they have the three brain cells necessary to buy a dial-up account/go to a friend's house/use an iPhone for their second account. Plus DrGabriela, Olawe, etc. are all accounts with worthless or non-existent contributions outside of reverting to G33. Comparing them to a guy with a bazillion featured articles (Cla68) and a guy who's one of the most eloquent commentators (if not editors) I can think of (PiperDown), is bizarre. - Merzbow (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is, wikipedia is not a democracy, so numbers don't in principle matter. But my concern there in particular is looking ahead to future problems with the endless witch-hunt that Kirill's proposals will institute in order to keep Giovanni off the project, simply given how incredibly poorly these things have gone before. As you say, if it takes three brain cells to get a dial up account, maybe it takes only one or two more to edit somewhere else for a few months first. So we had better ban them as Giovanni. Maybe with a few more brain cells a whole new leftist perspective with all new sources would be offered instead, so we'd better ban them as Giovanni. Perhaps in a stroke of super-intelligence, Giovanni comes back and simply tries to present a POV which contradicts entirely different fundamental precepts of the U.S. War on Terrorism, so we'd better ban them as Giovanni too. And yes, given human nature, I wouldn't be surprised that a year or two down the road some remarkable contributor of the likes of Cla68 is accused of being G33 too. Apparently, the hoi polloi bought that hook line and sinker on Cla68's RfA. After all, if our best contributors can barely survive such suspicions, what chance do the rest of us have? The wise thing to do -- what King Solomon would do -- would be to block all these other accounts as socks and sternly warn G33 to never do this again. But the world wants justice not wisdom. Sic transit gloria mundi. -- Kendrick7talk 01:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't think its that complicated. If other users appear with behavior as that of G33 then there is a proper course of action irrespective of whether they are g33 or not. For all we know G33 may be a previously banned disrupter who has already gone through this process before. Dman727 (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your concerns haven't been realized. If indeed a "witch hunt" were to occur, it would have started here.  Instead, a very narrow list of editors were identified.  I doubt it's complete but it's the obvious supporters of Giovanni33.  Certainly there was no witch hunt.  Also, there are plenty of people with Giovanni33's viewpoint that are not disruptive so there is really no concern about that voice being silenced.  It won't be silenced but at least the disruption will end.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

undent

Can you stop with the hyperbole and strawmans, Kendrick? They are not particularly productive. Jtrainor (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: "Proxy accounts banned" is overly broad and glaringly prone to abuse
The language "as well as any account subsequently identified by an administrator as a likely sockpuppet or proxy of him" is incredibly broad and glaring prone to be abused. Given what is passing for 'evidence of sockpuppetry' in this case any administrator can say "Yep, that editor is from SF and voted keep on "allegations of state terrorism" and uses 'its' instead of 'it's' - You are a sockpuppet of G33 and therefore I can block you." Let's take a little time to craft a statement that is not so open to being abused. -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators can do that now (and have done it to Giovanni puppets) yet we don;t see the kind of abuse you speak of. This is not a new power.  Please have some faith that the administrators are not a collective group of dolts and will act appropriately.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Recent/current actions of admins in response to suspected G33 socks are sufficient evidence for me to stand by my statement, however you choose to characterize their actions. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree admins have not behaved correctly with regards to these socks - by not blocking them fast enough. Which is why we are here. The root of the problem to me is that G33 is perhaps the most charismatic disruptive user this project has ever seen; his ability to charm people into thinking that 2+2=5 is nothing short of amazing. - Merzbow (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not there are dolts among the ranks of admins, it is foolish to state official proclamations of the ArbCom in such imprecise language as "identified by an adiminstrator as a likely" when it is easy to more precisely define what exactly the ArbCom means and sees as a threshold for making such a decision. A clearer statement NOW will not only prevent abuse if indeed there are doltish administrators, but will also prevent the ArbCom from having to come back and revisit the issue to clarify later when someone who claims not to be a sock of G33 appeals what is seen as an unfair block. --  The Red Pen of Doom  00:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Identified as a likely sockpuppet" is the same threshold that is applied to others accused of sockpuppetry. Why would we raise the bar or provide obstacles when the culprit is a known sockpuppeteer?  --DHeyward (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reasons why it shouldn't be the threshold applied to anybody have already been explained, insisting on the fact that it has been accepted as threshold is not a meaningful reply.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you are trying to solve a different problem. It stands to reason that an Arbcom banned sock puppetteer shouldn't get better treatment than users that are not banned by Arbcom and just sanctioned by the community.  If you would like to change the community's stance on Sock Puppets, bring it up at the pump or file an RFC, but don't just give a sock puppet license to Giovanni33 because you dislike the administrator consensus view on dealing with suspected sock puppets.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh snap
Oops, caught by RFCU. - Merzbow (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but nothing to do with me. Isn't SuperRedGreen the impersonator account? That is, you say he has impersonated you, and I say the same for me? Also, I thought that this account used a dial-up, so why is he dialing up to a close location to myself (and you), instead of Hawaii, as you have theorized should be done? Lastly, a correction of fact: not that it matters but when this account made the edit in question, my block had already expired, so stating that they acted when I was blocked is incorrect. So if I was unblocked what purpose does a socket-puppet serve other than to get a RFCU to confirm it as someone else? Why why just this one edit and not the related Chile article where DHweyward also reverted me (against the 3rd Opinion I started, and other editors)? This just raises more questions than it does answers, so I know you present this here as evidence of my further innocence; of course you would not try to spin this as somehow meaning that I got caught because such as claim would be completely devoid of merit.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with you but is listed as "likely"? Giovanni you can't expect Wikipedia to change its entire way of dealing with puppets just because you say so. You could try to come clean, or at least stop abusing puppets. But your constant violations of Wikipedia rules is really too much. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the basis for the conclusion that it is "likely" since whatever logic is being used is faulty. From my understanding this is based on location, which goes against Merzbow's changing logic on the question of location and the "dial-out" (even if that theory is even true!), accounts. The reason the location as the reason of "likely" is an invalid, is because its the same location of many other editors, including Merzbow himself. Also, notice how this account did not evade getting technically linked to another account? So whoever this person is they don't know how to socket-puppet in a way that evades this technical detection method. That is good. But this goes against the theory that I somehow know how to. But if they are me, then we have a contradiction again. Logically, this does not work, and therefore its more likely that they are not connected to me in any way, other than some impersonations (which Merzbow agrees with when it comes to himself). As far as coming clean, I have done that already, and have not used socket-puppets since 2006.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You use Ratatoui to evade your 1RR - was you, then  was Ratatoui, a few hours later. The RFCU has one CU saying that Ratatoui is "likely" you based on technical as well as geographic evidence, and another CU saying that Ratatoui is also "likely" you, but "confirmed" as SGR. You got caught. It's over. - Merzbow (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the basis for the conclusion that it is "likely" since whatever logic is being used is faulty. How can you say the logic is faulty without knowing under what circumstances the conclusion was reached?
 * Also, notice how this account did not evade getting technically linked to another account? If that's the case, perhaps this is you trying to create evidence that you are somehow the subject of a "conspiracy"? If some mysterious parties are going to great lengths to undermine you then and it is so obvious that this account can't be you, this person or persons would haven't linked this account to yours. I note that supergreenred was never directly linked to you, so that would suggest the person(s) in question know how to cheat the system.
 * As far as coming clean, I have done that already, and have not used socket-puppets since 2006. I notice you don't mention meatpuppets - shame I have to prompt you on that. As Merzbow says, it looks like you've been caught red-handed - either you got sloppy or you've tried to be too clever for your own good. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Note for the Committee
Giovanni33 has been indefinitely banned by the community. Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine is the generic wording for such a situation. Daniel (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Total horse manure. Five hour discussion during a national holiday does not a "community ban" make. -- Kendrick7talk 02:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kendrick, the evidence of Giovanni's abuse could be worse than the evidence of OJ Simpson's abuse, and you'd still object. What does he have to do in your eyes to get banned: murder 2 administrators? The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if you could prove it was a hate crime... Daniel (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) LOL @ "evidence". There is no evidence, that's why there's an ongoing arbitration case. But, yes, I'd defend anyone who was railroaded like this. Railroading a quick hack job through AN/I when you know most editors are AFK is unjust. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and suspending that right for life is not something I take lightly. -- Kendrick7talk 03:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC) lol, I just got a message notice... maybe it'll be good news!
 * From my experience with your defences of banned users, Giovanni33 has more chance of having the four arbitrators currently voting to ban him for a year overturn that than have you overturn the community ban. Your methodology is flawed to the point that it actually helps the case of those who supported him being banned. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My record of stopping lynch mobs is running at at least 50/50, imo. User:Privatemusings and User:PalestineRemembered can attest to that. I try to forget my failures though.... -- Kendrick7talk 03:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very selective recollection, then. Daniel (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this situation (and SevenOfDiamond's) will serve as a warning to future disruptive users that there will always be people out there willing to spend more time defending the Project than they are willing to spend disrupting it. Now I'm off to do some actual editing... - Merzbow (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, OK Daniel. Whatever. -- Kendrick7talk 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Kendrick7 on this, banning is NOT taken lightly, and the community does not have the right to back-door a decision like this when arbcom is already reviewing the user's case. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ned, the community does have the right and arb-comm recognised that in the Bluemarine case. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I admit I also share Kendrick's and Ned's opinions: the ban was implemented after 4–5 hours of discussion on the weekend of a national holiday (in the United States). If Giovanni is banned by the community, I would much prefer to see the discussion go for the duration of the weekend so that administrators and editors who are out and about have the opportunity to join the discussion and possibly help to reach a consensus. --Iamunknown 06:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And why exactly would Ryan have known there's a holiday in the US? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that I implied he should have known. I did, however, state that, due to the fact that there is a holiday in the US, the ban discussion should continue for the weekend (of course, it is now closed again...). --Iamunknown 16:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, my mistake. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Attempts to paint this action as something taken lightly and without consideration are without merit. G33 has been a disruptive influence and occupied administrator time for 2.5 YEARS now. This is a not a user requesting a 2nd chance, 3rd chance etc.  This is a user who has been given dozens of second chances.  This is not a decision that took 4 hours to make.  Its a decision that took 30 months to make. Dman727 (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If there had been any evidence of recent disruption, you would think it would have been brought to the attention of the ArbCom in this case. Funny such evidence never came to light. This editor seems to be trying to write an encyclopedia despite constant harassment by others, of which this is just the latest round. -- Kendrick7talk 16:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that this latest puppet saga was added to the evidence. Or are you talking about something else? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's never been proven that Giovanni is SuperGreenRed; yes, the evidence showed yet another SGR sock. Whether or not they were the same was what this case was about, and the case is still open. This actually seems like more evidence that they are not, as Giovanni would have to be insane to create a new account while this case was open. -- Kendrick7talk 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So maybe he did it deliberately thinking people like yourself would respond that way. Who knows. He could have just got sloppy. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just like with SevenOfDiamonds, some people think there is a conspiracy whose sole purpose is to make it look like G33 is socking, accomplished via recruitment of meatpuppets, long-distance dialing, and so on. Said conspiracy watches Wikipedia 24 hours a day so they can jump in to revert to G33 on new articles hours after he gets reverted. And G33 is such a genius that he would never draw suspicion on himself, even if he was a devious sockpuppeteer, so a priori any evidence we proles can find of such must be false. I want to believe! - Merzbow (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kendrick, I might point out that all 6 arbitrators so far, as well as all but one person with time to comment on the ANI thread (I count 13 to 1) disagree with you. That's 19 supporting a block, the majority of whom are administrators, only 1 person with any block log, and many of whom are uninvolved. The number of people against - 2 including you (with a considerable edit warring block log), both of which are involved, neither of which is an admin. 19-2 is a remarkable unity that is almost never gained on banning cases. Now what is more likely: there is a conspiracy and willful ignorance against Giovanni, or that people who take his point of view just happen to not want to see the evidence? If the first is the case, then I guess that everybody but you is wrong. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not been able to defend your position or attack the position you are opposing, you seems just to be happy that possibly wrong people agreeing with you are the majority. Actually nobody here has been able to express a decent reasonable defense of the position expressed and voted in the proposed decision. A user has been said to be "possibly socking" and has been banned for 1 year *only* on this ground. That's very embarassing on my view and very similar to the cited case of Seven of Diamonds.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it too much to ask that people quote from the actual decision reached? "There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Giovanni33 has repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing." There is no "possibly" in there. - Merzbow (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it too much to ask that people interpret the phrase correctly? The statement do not say anything about the time when the alleged behaviour occurred and if it is not related to the present it has already been punished and is clearly not enough to justify a ban in the present time. To justify a punishment now you need something that has been done later and has not yet been punished, and - most important thing - something which is real and not just "possible".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does WP:DEADHORSE exist? If not someone should create it. Dman727 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact it does, and if ever it applied to a conversation, this is it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You obviously have absolutely no argument. I think silence is the best choice in these cases (especially in embarassing situations like this one) isn't it?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Pokipsy76 banned for two months from editing articles related to the 9/11 attacks, broadly construed, for tendentious editing including an egregious WP:BLP violation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)" Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories Lemme guess, that's really why you're pissed off at ArbCom? - Merzbow (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Ad hominem. Again silence would have been a far better choice.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The opportunity for argument is over. Consensus was reached.  In overwhelming fashion.  Like the rest of Wikipedia, arbcom operates on consensus and it was reached in very convincing fashion.  There couldn't be more consensus.  The arguments of Giovanni33's innocence is simply not convincing.  It's not a question of recent vs. dated sockpuppetry but rather a record of continuous sockpuppetry.  He got better at avoiding checkuser but he didn't get better at avoiding edit warring or avoiding spas that look and quack like Giovanni33.  In the end, the project is simply better off not having to deal with such polarizing and disruptive editor who's main contribution seems to be antagonizing and reverting the rest of the community.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The opportunity for comment about the final decision is not over. The argument about gulty of Giovanny is definitly not convincing and insisting on "consensus" does not help. There is no record and no real proof of any "continuous sockpuppetry" as already explained by Kirill above. The other accusations are pointless since they have not been cited at all in the proposed dicision page.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel this way. Giovanni33 was found to be sock/puppet master in contravention of the rules.  Evidence was presented and adjudicaticated.  Much the same way Hans Reiser was found guilty of murder even though no body or smoking gun was found.  It was "Likely" that he was the murderer just as it is "Likely" that Giovanni33 is a sockpuppeteer and the evidence overwhelmingly supports that conclusion except for a few die-hard supporters.  The only difference is that Reiser led authorities to the body to get a lighter sentence after he was convicted.  Giovanni33 may very well admit to these socks when his year ban is up (just like he did last time) and try to get his community ban removed.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually with the positive RFCU that came just as the case was closing, with a CU claiming technical evidence, we do have the smoking gun. - Merzbow (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is impossible, generally speaking, to prove on a technical level that he's continuing to do so—it's not all that difficult to game the system such that there is no technical evidence of guilt". This is not me, this was said by Kirill just after I made the objection I am making now. Not only there is no smoking gun: the user has been banned solely for suspects (->NO PROOF). You can find no comparison between this case and any real case in a modern democracy because in modern democracies there is a thing called presumption of innocence.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its dead Jim. WP:DEADHORSE Dman727 (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Is it common for you to behave like a troll or are you particularly inspired by this thread?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I had hoped that you had read and understood the link that I offered you twice. Nonethless, I'll explain it. There is really no point in debating this topic any longer.  Further discussion and deliberation on the decision reached by both the community and the arbcom is pointless as the likelihood of reversal is virtually non-existant.  Its quite ok if you disagree with it.  In fact there are a few minor points that I disagree with as well. Still, it is now time for everyone to behave as adults and move on to doing, whatever it is they normally do. I do sense that you long to have the last word in, my children exhibit the same behavior sometimes so I understand this urge.  I'll grant you honor of responding now and I will personally will refrain from continuing this pointless thread. Dman727 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong in many different ways and I think you should respect my freedom to behave accordingly.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest no one further respond to Pokipsy at this point, as he's obviously not interested in doing anything but furthering a dead conversation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh? Why is it so a bad thing to comment or discuss a decision by the Arbcom?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

FoF lacking
I hope the committee realizes that the only findings of fact the committee has produced are that G33 "has used socks", which in and of itself is not a violation of any policy. That the committee is then banning someone without finding facts related to bannable offences is terribly concerning. In one instance after another after another it appears the ArbCom is going out of its way to undermine the communities faith in your abilities. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The FoF says has repeatedly engaged in prohibited sockpuppetry and/or some form of proxy editing - that is a violation of policy. You may want to re-word your comment. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because sockpuppetry in and of itself is not a violation of any policy, I hope the committee would be more clear in what exactly the  "prohibited sockpuppetry" activity ia that G33 has supposedly committed with these socks that has lead to these remedies. --  The Red Pen of Doom  19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I would not dare to speak for the committee, I would presume it would be using puppets to avoid his revert parole. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom correspondence with G33
Note:The Arbitration Committee has exchanged email correspondence with G33. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything to report on them? The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. G33 contacted the arbitration committee by email with comments and questions. The Committee replied. I wanted to make note that this occurred prior to the close of the case. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)