Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33


 * I did not open the RFC. So that is wrong. Second I only edit from 74.73.16.230 as that is my home location. Further the previous RFCU already stated I am not 70.105.24.127 - Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SixOfDiamonds You filed it, you should know. Futher now I am being accused of being Giovanni and Fairness And Accuracy For All and Rootology. Please stop your harassment. Now we have another one Requests for checkuser/Case/SevenOfDiamonds --SevenOfDiamonds 18:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: While this user check request is really without any valid basis, actually, I'm perfectly open with any user checks done on me--for any reason, and any time. I feel I made a promise to User:Musical Linguist, an admin I now greatly admire for her fairness (I'm sure those who know her feel exactly the same way), and never again would I ever even consider breaking the rules, getting unfair advantages on content disputes. I, ofcourse, regret my past rough learning curve on getting "broken in" to the norms of the WP community concerning its rules, but I've come out of it rather grateful with a new found respect for WP and the very rules I, shall I say, took casually. In any case, any suspected Socket puppetry inquires against me, has my complete support. I stand now and shall forever remain free of such behaviors. So all this talk of my past block log, socks, etc. is ancient history, stuff of last year, bring brought up by POV warriors, due to losing article content disputes. Its a special case of argumentum ad hominen--poisoning the well fallacy. I guess they feel that rather ugly block log gives them some capital. However, if you look closely, you will see only 6 blocks for 3RR and all from last year. Also, there are some false blocks that were quickly overturn by other admins. Anyway, this is all old news, and not relevant to anything happening now.


 * Regarding Spartans claims, I have nothing against Mongo personally, but I have spoken out against his behaviors, esp. when he is uncivil to other users (esp. just because they are not from the US). I hate all forms of bigotry and do my part to speak up against violations of CIV, esp. along such unacceptable lines as I've seen engage in, which apparently is a pattern with a long history:MONGO (rv, antiwar foreigners pushing their POV) MONGO (rv...the australian news piece is mostly opinion from a foreign newspaper, the wording was clearly POV in the remainder of the information.) The most recent, he reverts a content dispute, and called it “vandalism,” when it was clearly just content dispute. But, he did an IP trace to make sure to attack him/her for where he was editing from—his country. And, used a nativist assumptions based in rather ugly bigoted reasoning in an attack on the users national origin, as indicative of proof that he was “anti-American"--judging him based on his nationality:"06:04, 4 July 2007 MONGO (Talk | contribs) (61,303 bytes) (revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not.)"[]I understand he has strong POV issues, and has friends who share his conservative POV (and thus edit war together), on article content, with other editors, including myself. But, I have not violated the 3RR rule on article content and instead work with editors from all POV's to reach consensus for the good of the article. Needless to say, to claim that I "have it out for Mongo," is a rather absurd and paranoid claim because I don't take anythign on here personally. However, I call a spade a spade and stand up for editors who are unfairly attacked. If someonr bullied and attacked Mongo the way he has done so to other users, I'd stand up for him and call out the other users incivil behavior as equally unacceptable. For me the onlly issue is following the communities rules, applied equally to everyone. Civility, Assuming Good Faith, No Personal Attacks, are not optional luxuries, they are core policies no one is above. If Mongo doesnt violate them, I have no problem with him at all. I only oppose certain behaviors that are inconsistent with the rules we should all be following, and that includes behaviors like this--the most recent examples-- which I find rather shocking that he is not already blocked for it:[]Giovanni33 02:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am more inclined to beleive that is a sock of Giovanni33 than Six/SevenOfDiamonds...but I have no doubt that SevenOfDiamonds is a sock, probably of a banned editor and that he has been following me around to varous articles. Diamonds may very well be banned editors or. Anyway, Bmedley Sutler has few edits and showed up and on his second edit, had decent knowledge of wiki work so he's not a newbie. and has been acting as a meatpuppet at least for Giovanni33, suggesting we add a section on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States article...which Giovanni33 later used as "consensus" to add a huge section (after I said a brief mention at best) to the article. Givanni33 claims he is San Mateo, California and he has edited a few articles about things near to that location and Bmedley Sutler has a few recent edits to the Big Sur article...which is not geographically distant at all from San Mateo.[].--MONGO 03:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a diff showing Bmedley Sutler editing Giovanni33's user page (NOT talk page, user page).   MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? I don't understand what your point is.Giovanni33 01:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That was my 4th edit and I put it in the wrong place. What are you trying to make out of it Devonshire? Bmedley Sutler 09:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Yes, I work in San Mateo, but live in Daly City/San Francisco, about a 20 mins drive. Big Sur is not that close, about 3 hours drive south along the Coast. I had no idea Bmedley was from around there. I'll make sure to invite him on the next WikiMeet in the SF area. The last one, last weekend, Jimbo himself attended. Its good to know we have lots of good editors around this neck of the woods. But, I think he probably was a newbie because he thought he could use his own papers he wrote in college on the subject. He didn't seem to know about OR.
 * Btw, for the section I created, I obtained consensus from all editors on both sides of the POV fence, and even you Mongo agreed (only to change your mind later--after I did all the work). However, it seems your only problem with it, is that you want it even smaller? I purposefully made it very brief. I guess next time you need to say what you mean by brief. The section is one of the smallest sections, and its that way only because you wanted it kept small. I should get some credit for that, working with editors of all points of view, a true collaborative effort, and even after other editors were asking me to add it, I held off another 3 or 4 days just to make sure everyone was aboard and that I would follow the guildines/conditions by all editors. You bring up my edit waring, etc. but why do you ingore fine examples of working with consensus as this? The article has been making significant progress with lots of compromise, give and take.Giovanni33 04:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I ask that Mongo be punished for these baseless attacks on my character. Mongo is by far the rudest person I have enountered here. It seeems like he wants to drive away anyone who disagrees with him. Look at his contributions on the terrorism article. Most are insults and snide remarks. 'Does not play well with others'Bmedley Sutler 09:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)