Ultramarine (talk | contribs) →Evidence presented by Ultramarine: corrections, devices used |
Giovanni33 (talk | contribs) |
||
(36 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 333:
# Supergreenred: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=205763985] - "over stating controversial. Covered in section of definitions." ''(edit summary)''
==Evidence presented by Giovanni33 ==
===Evidence of innocence===
====Giovanni33====
Lets summarize the evidence being used against me:
*1. My block log is presented as relevant for consideration. I disagree. If anything my block log shows how much I’ve proven my ability to reform. Most of it, though, is wheel-warring, over issues not related to socket-puppets.
*2. My past puppets are displayed in this case. It is true that I engaged in this behavior a long time ago. I regret that. I apologize for it. And, I have never done it again. I would not let down the trust given to me by Musical Linguist, whom I now greatly respect for her kindness and empathy. I wish she were still with us. I regret many unkind things I did and said at that time. Flo will remember that. But instead of creating a new un-tattered account that many advised that I do, I stuck with my original because I was told I’d be given a “tabula rasa”, a clean slate to start over. I ask that the slate indeed be wiped clean as much as possible in keeping with this; that these past puppetry violations from years ago accorded weight today.
*3. It is mentioned that I’m currently under an Arbitration Remedy restriction of 1R/week, which I have violated. Its true I’ve slipped a couple of times by accident. But I edit a lot, and my overall record is one of compliance to these restrictions, without complaint.
*4. It is alleged that there is much linguistic evidence below that I have again resorted to using socket-puppets out of frustration with the 1RR parole. This is a serious charge, and it should not be made lightly. I hope to show that a critical examination of the evidence against me does not satisfy conditions necessary for the conclusions that are reached. Indeed, I hope to show that it’s deeply flawed by [[confirmation bias]]. When one looks for exculpatory evidence, the case against me blows away lots of smoke and reveals no fire.
I will focus my evidence to address parts that are most relevant. There is much that has been presented by Ultramarine that less relevance. However, if there are serious and relevant elements that I’ve skipped over but need to be addressed, I’d be more than happy to respond to them as well. I may add to this as time permits.
===Ultra's assertions===
Ultramarine cite in his evidence that Supergreenred revealed his IP address to be in San Jose: address.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ultramarine&diff=210286782&oldid=210286479] This appear to be true.
He then cites one of my old indefinitely blocked puppets, [[User:MikaM]], as having also edited from San Jose[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity&diff=prev&oldid=36182224]. Yet, the IP check on this does not show San Jose. As previously pointed out diff’s Ultramarine provides don’t always support his claims accurately, or don’t support it at all.
Ultramarine conclude that this shows that “Giovanni33 previously have moved away from San Francisco to avoid detection.” He repeats the same point: “San Jose instead of San Francisco showing the considerable efforts Giovanni33 makes to hide his sock puppetry.”
That would be a considerable effort, if true (not to mention expensive, gas is over $4/gal here). The evidence by Merzbow is more relevant, focused, and interesting, and makes th heart of he case, which I’ll examine in detail.
===Edit timelines does not support charge of puppetry===
Merzbow presents time-line evidence that alleges to show “neatly disjointed” editing activity. This would make sense if I had to drive an hour to San Jose back and forth. They would all have to be disjointed. However, it turns out that Merzbow admits that they aren’t really disjointed, because as he says, “they overlap by a few minutes.” Even so, that would be suspicious. But then we find he also lists exceptions that don’t match up to this theory at all, and are off by hours. However, other than these very significant facts, he concludes, “in general, they slot neatly and usually tightly between each other.” He explains the overlapping incidents as me trying to cover my tracks on purpose.
Being an intelligent fellow, Merzbow correctly anticipates a logical reply. Namely that it would be easy for me to use same method to “prove” that Ultramarine is my puppet, in a [[reductio ad absurdum]]. But he says that if “one compares the timing of a heavy editor undisputably not G33, like Ultramarine, to the above contributions” its not the same: “Periods of intense editing activity by these accounts usually abut each other very closely, but never overlap - except for two outliers in which they overlay very closely (said arse-covering).” His analysis of Ultramarine confesses some very similar findings only that there are more outliers. The problem with this is that one can simply turn up the “exception” allowance, fine-tunning adjustment for greater, “arse-covering,” no? The problem is that it doesn’t match neatly. There is an arbitrary selection and explanation of evidence to make it fit a preconceived conclusion, which could equally be stretched to fit any other heavy editor plus or minus how much “adjustments” we allow that don’t fit the theory. Of course, its always could be true that two events occurring at the same time that have no simple relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring roughly around the same time.
===The technical explanation===
Merzbow provides a technical explanation that is at odds Ultramarines theory. He says, “The below pattern can be explained by one person at one location, using different browsers or a second computer to edit. And one can easily have a desktop on a Comcast cable connection and a laptop on a DSL connection; or Remote Desktop into a work computer. With what I personally have, I could roleplay accounts from three different ISPs: one from my iPhone, one from cable, one from connecting through my work machine. But they would all be noted as coming from the same geographic area, as all these accounts do.”
I grant this may be technically possible, although I have some doubts about it. Perhaps an IT person can comment about it. It’s my understanding that a Remote Desktop into the office would not hide one’s home IP as that is still uses the home internet IP to connect to the remote work machine. I have a cable connection, so I don’t need a DSL as well. I don’ t have an i-Phone, either. I’m sure that the user-check information will show these characteristics. I edit only from my home and at work using the same account. I welcome an admin into my home for an inspection of my technical set up. All are welcome.
I will examine the evidence below, but I want to point out that on a few occasions I had an edit conflict while leaving a message on the talk page of an article at the same time one of my alleged socket-puppets was doing so. I’ll have to dig up that diff.
Also, I noticed that RafaelFingers left a message earlier on this evidence page at the time I happened to be attending this a performance of Sam Shepard's Curse of the Starving Class (http://www.act-sf.org/cursestarvingclass/SF) from 2pm to 4:30 pm. Since Rafaelfingers appears to have edited during this same time, Merzbow's theory that I'm editing from multiple ISP's, can be disproved. I know Arbcom has does not typically accept the kind of evidence that real courts would, but it’s an idea. I have my ticket still. It also occurred to me that since these other editors apparently are all from the bay area, a special wiki-meet could be proposed, and actually happen, in theory. Since I am innocent here I am willing to work with the committee through a neutral admin to prove my innocence. Perhaps though a Skype conference? I’ve met admins here on wiki-meets, and they might be willing to look into this first hand, if all parties are amiable. My point is that I have nothing to hide and I believe with enough investigation the truth will come out, and it does us no harm to look at possibilities for uncovering the truth. I’m willing to put in the effort and do the leg-work.
===Linguistic evidence does not supports charge of puppetry===
The evidence is based on, for example, that I “frequently misspells words, and will usually spell "it's" as "its" and "let's" as "lets", that I do not hyphenate compound words that need them, and particular phrases, etc. All of this evidence, I will show is very weak when one tries to find evidence that disproves the claims. I was surprised myself how easy it was. It turns out that the rarity of these examples are greatly exaggerated.
There is on exception, though: “to Paint a POV Picture.” Unlike the rest, this is a strong piece of evidence of a unique fingerprint. So either they are the same person, or one copied the other. I would like RafaelFingers to explain that since SuperGreenRed said it first, followed by Rafealfingers. My personal view of these accounts are that SuperGreenRed is an impersonator (more on that later) and the other two accounts are legitimate users.
But the rest of the evidence is interesting for what was left out as much as what was included. When I looked into it, I found this to be a strong case of [[confirmation bias]]. A case of the [[cherry picking]] fallacy. When controls are applied, this becomes clear. I’ll look at each one of these with a more scientific approach, using blinds.
====Specific phrases (lack of hyphenation)====
It’s claimed that, “Giovanni33 has a peculiar allergy to hyphenating compound words that should be hyphenated.” What stands out is not a comprehensive sample that shows frequency of this particular use, but rather just two example to match one account with the other. Well that is very easy to do. I can look for any editor and find a match under the same criteria.
Examples used:
'''"well referenced section"'''
This is said to be very rare. Merzbow states:
“* Google shows only a half-dozen hits without the hyphen.” Then then gives one example where I use it in this fashion, along with one example from an IP user. Although Merzbow says they should be hyphenated, making it appear that it's actually a rare grammatical mistake, actually there is no agreed-upon guideline regarding the use of compound words in English; there is quite a variance among the closed form, hyphenated form, and open form of compound words. This is reflected among editor use, though out WP.
In fact, even our own [[WP:CITE]] policy page uses it without a hyphen:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources] - “In this respect ''well referenced'' articles can unfortunately suffer disproportionately in comparison to those not so well sourced.”
It's commonly used in this form by thousands of editors on wikipedia as my simple search revealed. In fact, even Merzbow used it in this way himself (to be shown below).
===A less biased method===
But, in order to avoid the same kind of cherry picking [[confirmation bias]], I choose one aprops AfD page where the term would be used by many editors to see how its frequency is actually used. This is intended as a type of [[randomized controlled trial]] by looking at one page to avoid the same traps of the [[observer-expectancy effect]] that plague my Ultras and Merzbow's methods.
The page in question:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism_by_the_United_States_%28sixth_nomination%29]
The results of this experiment show that most editors use it the way I use, in its open form, without hyphens. This fact renders its use as evidence against me rather impotent. Yes, I have used it in this form---along with Merzbow, and most other editors. So to pick out an example where I share this trait with another does nothing to established a basis of connecting me to that person. It's insufficient.
'''From this one page
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism_by_the_United_States_%28sixth_nomination%29] '''we find 15 instances of the open form vs 7 hyphenated forms''':"
*1. Clarityfiend:
“…Seems to be ''well sourced'' and is a legitimate topic…Clarityfiend 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Liftarn:
“…Notable subject and ''well referenced'' article…”
3. JForget:
“…very notable and ''well referenced'' (probably the most referenced Afd nominated article I've seen so far)-JForget 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Sfacets:
Keep - ''well referenced''. If there are valid references naming the US as a state terrorist, what else is there to say? To negate what these sources say, however, would be OR and POV-pushing. Sfacets 05:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
5. SixOfDiamonds :
“…The article is ''well documented''…”--SixOfDiamonds 17:28, 25 June 2007
6.Badagnani:
Article is ''well sourced'', notable, and of good quality. Six nominations for deletion is ridiculous and this sort of disruptive behavior on behalf of the current nominator should not be permitted. Badagnani 22:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
7.Reaper X:
… ''well referenced'' and a notable topic…The nominator appears to be big on deleting articles that conspire and accuse the USA of wrong-doing, although I won't go as far as accusing them of violationg WP:POINT…-- Reaper X 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
8.JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh!”:
“…The reason why it is ''well sourced'', it combines other articles to do it. Can we write Alleged State terrorism by France as I have shown JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)”
9.EliminatorJR Talk:
“…It's'' well sourced'' in that it has no less than 93 external references…EliminatorJR Talk 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)”
10.Mandsford:
“…''Well sourced'', survived six deletion attempts so far, and another one will happen again soon, I'm sure... Mandsford 00:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
11.≈ jossi ≈ (talk):
“… ''well researched'' material…” ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
12.Henrik
“…Article is ''well referenced'', verifiable by reliable sources and fundamentally encyclopaedic…Henrik 10:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
13.Badagnani:
“…This article is clearly ''well sourced''…”Badagnani 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
14.Watchdogb:
Strong keep ''Well sourced'' article…Watchdogb 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
15.#Wayne:
Strong Keep - ''Well cited'' article. In fact it is better cited and more NPOV than many of the more controversial articles. From what I've read of the discussions in Talk I feel it comes down to whether WP wants to be an American Encyclopedia or a World Encyclopedia…Wayne 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
There are more but you get the point. Conclusion? More editors used the non-hyphened (open) form of this compound word. Now, how many were using the ‘proper” hyphened form? Only 7, less than half.
This is the result we get when we don’t [[cherry pick]]. I selected one page dealing with the same issue where the term is phrase is likely to be used. The form of compound word it's used is mostly open. The page, again is here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism_by_the_United_States_%28sixth_nomination%29] Why is it that something that is so common was chosen as the best evidence against me? Not for want of looking. Basically anything that confirmed the bias was selected and anything that didn't match up was ignored. A classic case of [[Morton's demon]], where one can end up believing that the earth is flat and only a few thousand years old.
Now, its true Merzbow prefers to use the hyphened form most of the times. He seems to be a stickler for proper grammar. But guess what if I [[cherry pick]]? You guessed it. I can find that rare example. See:
* Merzbow:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FUncle_Tupelo&diff=138285233&oldid=137154304] - "Good article, ''well referenced'', '''Support'''. "
Or almost anyone else I want to link:
* Jayig:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_tourist_apartheid_in_Cuba] - “…A ''well referenced'' article about a broadly known phenomenon. Jayjg (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, if I cherry pick I can find many instances where I do use the hyphen for compound words, even though I’m alleged to be allergic to such use, to prove the opposite: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:If_Americans_Knew&diff=prev&oldid=101275387]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity&diff=prev&oldid=50197851][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAllegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=210457847&oldid=210440622]
In summation this method is flawed, an example of [[Morton's demon]] guarding against what is seen and not seen. A more scientific survey shows that this evidence has no weight to it, and when the smoke is cleared, it turns out to be only dry-ice creating it. The same is true for these other too common phrases found by many editors alike:
'''"counter point"'''
My illustration above is particularly true when only one example of my using this phrase is matched up with only one example by another editor and a connection is purported to be established as a result. That's very weak, but again, without a systematic survey and larger pool, it's almost meaningless (unless it's really rare or unique--a linguistic fingerprint).
Some examples of others using this phrase:
*1.Maury:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMuseum_of_the_Confederacy&diff=43652238&oldid=43642462] - It is a matter of point and ''counter point''. Many notable historians (and other professions) disagree with one another. Look to religious beliefs for an easy example. This is nothing new but in what I see there is ''no point and counter point -- it is a one-sided viewpoint."''
*2.Kuru:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trend_following]
“No ''counter point''?”Kuru talk 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*3.Bfisk:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A199.172.228.206&diff=138134992&oldid=138013022] - “…Thus where is the ''counter point'' to this Trend following article? Bfisk (talk • contribs) 05:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)”
*4.RoyBoy:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A199.172.228.206&diff=138134992&oldid=138013022] - “.. quickly descend into bickering anarchy; with points, ''counter points'' and counter-counter points.”
*5.Wildnox:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALogan074&diff=67860105&oldid=67859543] - “I'm gonna try to find ''counter point'' sources, if not I'll at least try to provide counter point…”
'''Cites grammar/writing examples, of "its", "lets" as evidence'''
Merzbow shows many examples of these accounts using “lets” and “its” without the apostrophe. But when I looked for counter examples, not only did I find them, but I found these errors to be very common. I will list them out here as I did the others above, if asked to, although I think it’s a waste of time and space.
This was equally true with these phrases that follow the same patterns and thus suffer from the same flaw, which I provide a few examples of each to match what was presented as evidence against me.
'''"looks very good!"'''
#Shabranigdo
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sony_Walkman_A800%2F810_series&diff=194593679&oldid=194589920]- “looks very good…”
Over 200k hits on google: [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22looks+very+good%21&ie=uf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a]
'''"lets assume good faith"'''
#SatuSuro:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Merbabu&diff=prev&oldid=72189384] - “Lets assume good faith”
'''"off topic material"'''
Off Topic vs. Off-Topic seem to be equally common:
[http://www.google.com/search?q=off+topic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a]
In fact our own WP entry on the subject uses it in its open form (no hyphens):
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-topic] - “The term "off topic" is sometimes used to indicate a discussion venue where anything other than matters specifically addressed by the website in question are addressed.”
The pattern is the same for the rest of these:
'''"many editors working together"'''
'''"on principal"'''
'''"well referenced section"'''
'''"over stating"'''
'''"long standing"'''
The only one that is not common is this phrase and thus is good evidence is this one:
'''"paint a POV picture"'''
But in this case, I am not alleged to have ever used it so its hardly evidence against me.
The theories employed by both Ulra and Merzbow while at odds with each other share similar methodological flaws, and logical fallacies. Stringing together selected material in such a small sample pool (in many cases a single example of each) of some rather common expressions, and then deriving a causal connection, interpreting a meaning from it, will yield any results that one wants to look for, and look impressive on the surface, a type of [[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]. In contrast, the truth of the matter may even strain common sense, as does the [[birthday paradox]].
===Tables Turned?===
For fun, here is an alternate theory, using the existing evidence I can put together based on cherry picking things I can also raise eye brows. I only do this to illustrate the flawed method being employed. It's an example of how tricky this matter is, and I think it adds to reasonable doubt of this case against me.
Consider these facts.
Merzbow’s IP was revealed and a search shows it to be in the same Geographical Location as these alleged socket-puppets, but in particular SuperGreenRed:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=180737773]
I looked it up here:
[http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/lookup-results]
Contained within Ultra’s evidence above, SuperGreenRed is in San Jose. This is closer to Merzbow than to myself (Sunnyvale and San Jose are right next to each other). Merzbow already said he is able to play many roles with the technical means he has at his disposal.
Linguistic Evidence supporting Puppetry:
A rather uncommon phrase, much more uncommon than those used against me:
# Supergreenred:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ultramarine&diff=210286782&oldid=210286479] - “muhahahaa now you know my IP”
#Merzbow:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=180737773] - “muhahaha now everyone knows my IP”
To continue this cherry picking method, I did some more searching.
#Merbow:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ray_McGovern&diff=prev&oldid=52759943] - “Sheesh, both sides are off-track here.”
#Supergreenred:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ultramarine&diff=210286782&oldid=210286479] - “Sheesh. This is a big waste of time. Wikipedia is seriously getting off-track…”
#Supergreenred:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ultramarine&diff=210286782&oldid=210286479] - “At least until there are new FACTS.”
#Merbow:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ray_McGovern&diff=prev&oldid=52759943] -“…should be allowed to quote FACTS about what
Also, take a look at this regarding Merzbow's point of raising the question of the use of “its” vs. “It’s” interacting with SuperGreenRed about this issue; it is a convenient catch, but odd:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an&diff=210277365&oldid=210275671]
Again, I am not making any accusations based on such a specious methodology. These are surely coincidences, but they illustrate the flawed nature of using it to create appearances, and it may allow Merzbow to see how it feels. I certainly don't like this.
Lastly, when we look at my edits vs these alleged puppets edits, we see while they share a similar POV on many articles, they also edit on their own areas of interest which I do not share. Likewise, I edit in areas they do not share. So even their editing behavior does not mirror mine. The exception if SuperGreenRed, which I would agree is does seem to be an impersonator, and under policy can be assumed to be connected to me by behavior—even if I have no control over it. I presented this evidence in my opening statement before. Ultra and Merz have repeated things here, but it's a waste of space. But I may add it here later, if it would help me.
In conclusion, despite appearance, the truth is the truth and I hope it does set me free. I am willing to produce further evidence and do what it takes to have truth prevail. The doubts I raised do provide a reasonable application of the assumption of good faith, a cherished WP core policy that we all embrace, which should allow me to continue to be a member in good standing. The unblocking admin himself said he had too many doubts. He said that several admins talked to him who were familiar with my editing style, who did not believe I was socking again. I think those admins should be consulted with for their insight. Since I’m innocent I have nothing to fear and I want to fully cooperate as is deemed necessary to clear my name of these suspicions.
Thanks you.
|
Revision as of 14:14, 10 May 2008
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
Evidence presented by Ultramarine
Evidence of sock puppetry
Giovanni33
Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Giovanni33 may have the longest block log in Wikipedia.[1] He is known to have used many different sock puppets.[2] He is currently under an Arbitration Remedy restriction of 1R/week which he has violated several times.[3] Based on only a small part of the evidence presented below, he was blocked indefinitely for using sock puppets recently but some doubt remained and he was unblocked.[4][5] A situation where Wikipedia cannot act if checkuser does not show identical internet providers seems very harmful. That would mean that users could avoid all restrictions simply by using different providers. Especially if using wireless providers, as in this case, which are difficult to locate. Much additional evidence and several new sock puppets as stated below now clearly demonstrates Giovanni33's abuse of sock puppets and his unfortunately rather successful long term systematic breaking of Wikipedia policies. As such Giovanni33 and his methods are harmful to Wikipedia.
All of the following accounts and IPs come from the same geographic area as Giovanni33 who is located in San Francisco.[6][7] They are essentially SPA with few edits. They edit a very narrow range of related articles that Giovanni33 is interested in. Such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edited by all), State terrorism, Terrorism, William Blum, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Church Committee, Guatemalan Civil War, and 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. By using these accounts and IPs Giovanni33 systematically violates his 1R/week restriction as well as other aspects of WP:SOCKS by using them in votes and in talk page discussions in order to give a false impression of support.
Rafaelsfingers
Rafaelsfingers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edits from the same same geographic area as Giovanni33. Mostly from a wireless device.[8] SPA with few edits reverting to Giovanni33 earlier versions and repeating his arguments. Examples: Here Rafaelsfingers reverts to Giovanni33's version in the US state terrorism article.[9] Here Rafaelsfingers reverts to Giovanni33's exact version in the Guatemalan Civil War article. Not to one of the 13 intermediate different versions by different editors in some cases having the same POV but not the exactly identical text as that of Giovanni33.[10]
In addition to violating 1R/week, also violates WP:SOCK by voting at the same time as Giovanni33 in an AfD regarding the US state terrorism.[11][12]
When Rafaelsfingers was blocked it was Giovanni33 pleaded for unblocking on Rafaelsingers own talk page. Not Rafaelsingers until an administrator remarked that this looked bad and asked for a reply by Rafaelsfingers.[13]
Supergreenred
Supergreenred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edits from the same geographic area Giovanni33. Has made a few edits from Rafaelsfingers's ISP early in his history. [14] Has made at least one edit from San Jose using a dial-up connection and stated access to dynamic IP address.[15] One of Giovanni33's indefinitely blocked sock puppets, User:MikaM, has also edited from San Jose[16] and his earlier sock puppet farm also used a variety of internet connections and locations to avoid detection (see below).
SPA with few edits reverting to Giovanni33 earlier versions and repeating his arguments. Examples: Here Supergreenred reverts to Rafaelsfingers's (another sock puppet, see above) exact version in the US state terrorism article.[17] Here Supergreenred reverts to an IP in the same geographic area as Giovanni33 in the William Blum article.[18] Here Giovanni33 reverts to Supergreenred's exact version in the William Blum article:[19]
Giovanni33 has a long dispute with user:John Smith.[20] Here Supergreenred deletes a talk page edit by John Smith stating "John Smith is not welcome here."[21] Strange reaction by an editor with supposedly only a dozen edits at this time and who had never encountered John Smith before. But Giovanni33 has a long history of deleting John Smith's edits.[22][23][24]
Linguistic similarities:
- S: "Source calls him a historian, but you remove that." Supergreenred stating "remove" instead of "removed".[25]
- G: "you remove "historian' despite what the sources say." Giovanni33 stating "remove" instead of "removed".[26]
- S: "you are cherry picking only selective facts to paint a POV picture."[27]
- G: "You are cherry picking what information to include and exclude on the basis of POV."[28]
- S: "Allow time for discussion and consensus before mass deletions."[29]
- S: "Allow consensus for what to properly remove first."[30]
- G: "Allow for editors imput and consensus first please."[31]
- G: "Please allow for consensus before re-adding back."[32]
DrGabriela
DrGabriela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edits from the same geographic area Giovanni33.[33] SPA (before the RfA started) with few edits, despite being created on July 2007, reverting to Giovanni33 earlier versions and repeating his arguments. Examples: Here DrGabriela reverts to Giovanni33's exaxt version in the Chuch Committe article:[34]. Here Giovanni33 reverts to DrGabriela's version in the State terrorism article. [35] Here DrGabriela reverts to Giovanni33's version in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état article.[36] Here Giovanni33 reverts to the same paragraph text as DrGabriela in the Terrorism article.[37][38]
In addition to violating 1R/week, also violates WP:SOCK by voting at the same time as Giovanni33 in an AfD regarding the US state terrorism.[39][40]
76.102.72.153
76.102.72.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP from the San Francisco. Used to revert to Giovanni33's preferred version. Examples: Here reverts to Giovanni33's exact version in the William Blum article.[41] Here Giovanni33 reverts to this IP in the US state terrorism article.[42]
76.126.64.74
76.126.64.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP from San Francisco. Used to revert to Giovanni33's preferred version. Examples: Here makes similar reverts using the same arguments as Giovanni33 in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article.[43][44][45] Here Giovanni33 reverts to this IP's exact version on the US state terrorism article.[46]
67.188.208.203
67.188.208.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP from the San Francisco. Used to revert to Giovanni33's preferred version. Examples: Here reverts to Giovanni33 exact version in the US state terrorism article.[47]. Blocked for violating the the 3RR rule.[48] This not including Giovanni33's reverts.
67.188.208.91
67.188.208.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP from the San Francisco. Has made a single edit in Wikipedia which was to the US state terrorism article. Like Giovanni33 has an aversion to the word "claim" when describing views favored.[49][50][51]
67.180.59.86
67.180.59.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP from San Francisco. Has made a single edit in Wikipedia which like Giovanni33 a few days earlier removed an entire section from the US state terrorism article.[52][53]
71.204.160.68
71.204.160.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP from San Francisco. Five edits in Wikipedia all to US state terrorism article. Like another of Giovanni33's IPs it removes Red Army Fraction terrorism against the US.[54][55]
69.36.228.50
69.36.228.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP is not from San Francisco but from Palo Alto, California. But Giovanni33 is known to previously have moved away from San Francisco to avoid detection. See "Older accounts, IPs, and second chance" below. This edit to User talk:Bigtimepeace where 69.36.228.50 accepts a proposal made to Giovanni33 by Bigtimepeace shows that this IP is Giovanni33 editing from Palo Alto.[56]
64.118.111.137 and 64.118.113.49
64.118.111.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 64.118.113.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IPs not from San Francisco but from North Fork, California. Appeared during a week when Giovanni33 could not revert due to his 1R/W. 64.118.111.137 made 9 reverts to the US state terrorism article and was blocked for 3RR.[57] Obviously an experienced editor familiar with WP policies since he made references to AfD, speedy keep, good faith, POV, and featured status in his first talk page edit.[58] As usual for Giovanni33 made numerous claims of reverting to consensus which was particularly strange in this case. 5 hours after the last edit and being blocked another of Giovanni33's IPs, now from San Francisco, continued reverting to exactly the same version.[59]
For completeness I should also point out other long term sock puppeters on this article, which has seen more than its fair share of those, which may possibly be useful when evaluating the network evidence which I cannot see. Editing from New York: Indefinitely banned User:SevenOfDiamonds aka User:NuclearUmpf aka User: Zer0faults. Editing from San Antonio, Texas: User:Inclusionist aka User:Travb aka User:Divestment.[60] Editing from unknown location but not the same area as Giovanni33[61]: Indefinitely banned User:Bmedley Sutler aka User:Fairness And Accuracy For All. Editing from Taipei, Taiwan: indefinitely banned User:Stone put to sky who used numerous sock puppets to edit this article.[62][63].
IPs that have edited Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
IPs that have edited Allegations of state terrorism by the United States from the start of February 2008 and until this RfA. A period when I have continuously edited and followed the development and edits made to the article. As shown the IPs above are not some selectively selected for resemblance to Giovanni33 but are all the IPs from California that have edited the article during this period.
San Francisco, California: 76.102.72.153, 67.180.59.86, 76.126.64.74, 67.188.208.203, 71.204.160.68, 67.188.208.91. As per above.
Palo Alto, California: 69.36.228.50. As per above.
North Fork, California: 64.118.111.137, 64.118.113.49. As per above.
Taipei, Taiwan: 118.165.217.88, 118.165.219.98, 118.165.219.150, 118.165.218.235, 118.165.217.93, 220.134.17.21. Likely indefinitely blocked User:Stone put to sky as per above.
Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: 60.48.29.10. Four edits.
Astoria, New York: 208.120.68.62. One edit.
Osaka, Japan: 86.156.111.207. One edit.
Manila, Philippines: 124.106.194.69. One edit.
Saint Louis, Missouri: 207.206.136.29. One edit.
Older accounts, IPs, and second chance
The above does not include the much older confirmed sock puppets User:BelindaGong, User:Professor33, User:NeoOne, user:Freethinker99, and User:CleanSocks as well as the indefinitely blocked suspected sock puppets, User:FionaS, User:HK30, User:Kecik, User:Mercury2001, User:MikaM, User:NPOV77, and User:RTS. A total of twelve indefinitely blocked sock puppets. This not including other suspected sock puppets and IPs coming from the same geographic area as Giovanni33.[64]
Of particular interest is indefinitely blocked user:MikaM, a SPA used to avoid 3RR and revert to Giovanni33' version in the articles he was interested in then. MikaM as is the case now was not an obvious sock puppet based on IP alone and at least once edited from San Jose instead of San Francisco showing the considerable efforts Giovanni33 makes to hide his sock puppetry.[65] Another sock puppet has edited from 38.114.145.148 or Concord, California.[66] Also interesting is the use of a T-Mobile IP, 208.54.15.129, to revert to Giovanni33's versions.[67][68] As well as the claim made by one of his indefinitely blocked sock puppets that some of his reverts have been made by his wife and a friend, also discussed on the checkuser page, which if true would be meatpuppetry but would also make checkuser more difficult.[69][70]
AnnH made this comment on the first Checkuser which still applies "All in all, there is a very disturbing pattern of new users with no prior history at Wikipedia arriving and coming to all the pages he edits, agreeing with him on the talk page, reverting to his version, claiming consensus where none exists, and following him to other articles and voting for whatever he votes for."[71]
There is a long old WP:ANI discussion regarding Giovanni33 and his many sock puppets where large scale sock puppetry was confirmed and he came very close to being indefinitely blocked but was given a second chance.[72] Which he has ignored as shown above.
Evidence presented by Rafaelsfingers
response to evidence
If this is the best merzbow can offer, i'd hate to read his other contributions. Time and location correlations is an unpersuasive argument (the timestamps are unsubstantial, in any case.) With this logic, think about how many innocent people would be banned for a new news worthy event in a particular city. Yes, we all know about multiple ISP's, the admins here i'm sure are quite familiar with the internet, but no IP addresses have been linked! I've taken the suggestions of other admins and have ventured to other topics.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by Merzbow
Edit timelines support charge of puppetry
I am going to present a timeline analysis here for each day on which G33 and one of the other accounts both had substantial edits. With two exceptions (analyzed in-line), it turns out all time periods of substantial editing activity are disjoint from one another. Occasionally a single edit will appear outside, and a couple times the beginning or end of adjacent time periods will overlap by a few minutes, but in general, they slot neatly and usually tightly between each other, even on days when more than two of the accounts are editing.
The below pattern can be explained by one person at one location, using different browsers or a second computer to edit. An RFCU noted that Rafaelsfingers was on a wireless device, and almost everyone in the Bay Area has cell phones that can do this (you can often route your computer's connection through it also). And one can easily have a desktop on a Comcast cable connection and a laptop on a DSL connection; or Remote Desktop into a work computer. With what I personally have, I could roleplay accounts from three different ISPs: one from my iPhone, one from cable, one from connecting through my work machine. But they would all be noted as coming from the same geographic area, as all these accounts do.
(Number in parens is the number of edits made in that time period).
2007-07-19
- Giovanni33: 17:10:50 <-> 19:46:36 (19)
- DrGabriela: 20:38:01 <-> 23:24:25 (20)
2008-03-09
- Giovanni33: 10:49:33 <-> 11:18:20 (3)
- 67.188.208.203: 15:36:09 <-> 18:43:59 (21)
- Giovanni33: 19:23:57 <-> 01:19:36 (43)
2008-03-15
- Giovanni33: 11:26:03 <-> 13:37:05 (8)
- 76.126.64.74: 18:10:09 <-> 18:41:39 (11)
- Supergreenred: 18:39:53 <-> 19:01:38 (8)
- Giovanni33: 20:35:18 <-> 03:44:32 (23)
2008-04-02
- Giovanni33: 14:07:46 <-> 17:19:56 (8)
- 76.102.72.153: 19:14:25 <-> 19:52:38 (15)
2008-04-09
- Giovanni33: 12:41:57 <-> 18:07:06 (14)
- 76.102.72.153: 19:01:14 <-> 22:14:50 (11)
- Giovanni33: 23:23:28 <-> 02:04:41 (6)
2008-04-12
- Giovanni33: 11:12:09 <-> 11:17:09 (3)
- Rafaelsfingers: 16:56:15 <-> 22:22:53 (14)
- Giovanni33: 23:37:01 <-> 23:58:18 (3)
2008-04-13
- Supergreenred: 01:05:44 <-> 02:21:34 (6)
- Giovanni33: 01:02:10 <-> 02:42:48 (11)
- Giovanni33: 10:11:17 <-> 11:29:59 (9)
- Supergreenred: 14:07:48 <-> 17:17:05 (22)
- Giovanni33: 18:21:24 <-> 18:24:41 (5)
The early-morning shared time period is an outlier. The fact that the start time is within 3 minutes, and the end time within 21 minutes, lends credence that this was done deliberately by one person at one location. Note the reversion to form in the evening.
2008-04-15
- Supergreenred: 02:40:16 <-> 04:31:39 (19)
- Giovanni33: 14:49:59 <-> 14:50:50 (2)
- Rafaelsfingers: 20:14:09 <-> 22:02:38 (4)
- Giovanni33: 21:53:07 <-> 00:26:53 (18)
2008-04-17 and 2008-04-18
- Giovanni33: 09:46:07 <-> 23:22:31 (34) (also single edit at 01:23:01 on 18th)
- DrGabriela: 23:56:16 <-> 02:08:40 (19)
- Giovanni33: 02:29:06 <-> 10:22:22 (4)
- Rafealsfingers 10:54:11 <-> 11:27:26 (8) (with single edits at 16:01:17 and 21:33:57, in the middle of 1-2 hour bouts of G33 inactivity).
- Giovanni33: 12:32:54 <-> 23:42:04 (38)
2008-04-19
- Giovanni33: 11:36:11 <-> 14:05:07 (14) (also single edit at 18:43:11)
- Rafaelsfingers: 17:15:57 <-> 21:21:26 (24)
2008-04-20
- Giovanni33: 01:01:23 <-> 04:37:38 (19) (also single edit at 06:26:03)
- DrGabriela: 00:13:02 <-> 04:00:51 (16)
- Giovanni33: 13:28:25 <-> 21:03:11 (26)
- DrGabriela: 23:23:21 <-> 02:46:30 (40)
Another early-morning outlier, same analysis as above (i.e. start and end times close together). One deliberately-generated outlier for Super and another for Gabriela, on different days, showing the same M.O. Yup, looks like ass-covering. (And once again, reversion to form in the evening).
2008-04-21
- DrGabriela: <- 02:46:30 (per previous day)
- Giovanni33: 03:12:28 <-> 19:24:16 (11)
- Rafaelsfingers: 19:28:37 <-> 20:07:55 (3)
- Giovanni33: 21:59:19 <-> 22:53:12 (7)
- DrGabriela: 23:09:48 <-> 00:05:15 (4)
- Giovanni33: 00:26:50 (next day) <-> 01:28:59 (10)
2008-04-24
- Giovanni33: 23:03:12 (prev day) <-> 01:01:26 (25) (also single edit at 02:47:02)
- DrGabriela: 01:25:08 <-> 02:32:16 (15)
- Giovanni33: 08:46:08 <-> 18:31:50 (11)
- DrGabriela: 22:15:31 <-> 00:21:34 (20)
Pre-response:
Now I'm sure Giovanni is going to respond by attempting to prove he's a sockpuppet of Ultramarine. That won't work because if one compares the timing of a heavy editor undisputably not G33, like Ultramarine, to the above contributions, one sees a much more random overlap of time periods - which is what one would expect. For example, here is how Ultra's edits compare on a selection of days taken from above:
2008-04-19
- Ultramarine: 04:08:22 <-> 06:03:37 (24)
- Ultramarine: 15:26:49 <-> 22:35:07 (51)
Misses G33, but overlaps Rafaelsfingers by one or two hours on either end
2008-04-21
- Ultramarine: 01:12:45 <-> 03:41:18 (32)
Overlaps DrGabriela by 1:30 and G33 by 0:30.
2008-04-24
- Ultramarine: pretty much all day the 23rd to 01:04:21 on the 24th, then 06:17:21 <-> 16:50:26
Matches G33 end time in the morning, but in the evening their times are shifted by 2 hours relative to each other.
In contrast, the G33 accounts don't do this. Periods of intense editing activity by these accounts usually abut each other very closely, but never overlap - except for two outliers in which they overlay very closely (said arse-covering).
Linguistic evidence supports charge of puppetry
Giovanni33's writing style is unique, and evident in all of these accounts. He is usually quite polite, and when ruffled gets huffily indignant; at worst, he's like a schoolmarm lecturing her charges on "NPOV" and "consensus". He is loquacious, and his grammar is slightly off-key, sometimes falling into pseudo-chiastic redundancies (see diffs 1, 5, 7, 10, 12). He frequently misspells words, and will usually spell "it's" as "its" and "let's" as "lets". He connects clauses with two dashes and no spaces, but often does not hyphenate compound words that need them (see section below).
Grammar/writing examples, huffy lecturing, use of "its", "lets"
- Giovanni33: [73] - "But its a good start, at starting fresh with that section."
- Giovanni33: [74] - "Disagree take it to the SYN board and get informed. Every editor telling you over and over here seems to have no impact."
- Giovanni33: [75] - "It has no consensus to add, its not a relaible source, and is a personal attack on Chomsky, not his specific claims."
- 76.126.64.74: [76] - "If someone can show me how its about this, please do."
- 76.102.72.153: [77] - "Its as if he did not bother to read the many sources that disagree with him... It should be restored and changes should be discussed before making major changes like this."
- 76.102.72.153: [78] - "Of course these views also are part of those who argue against the bombings on other grounds and do not make this argument, but it certainly is part of the argument for why they are thought to be state terrorism. So I say keep." - (Indeed.)
- Supergreenred: [79] - "I see it as helpful to have some definitions here of Terrorism and the problem of an accepted definition for State Terrorism."
- Supergreenred: [80] - "This is wholey inadquate. Again, what is the rush? Regarding admin powers, its not proper for admins to use their powers to protect the article and then edit it: it gives them a content change advantage."
- Supergreenred: [81] - "Lets talk about what part needs to be moved to daughter articles and then agree before taking the action."
- Rafaelsfingers: [82] - "Its a lot of words but those are a lot of good sources. It shows that there is quite a lot of good sources that support the material for this article."
- Rafaelsfingers: [83] - "Aren't there guidelines about accusing people on guidelines on a seperate individuals talkpage?"
- DrGabriela: [84] - "The statement you quote above can be sourced to the book I have given you as the answer of where it comes from."
- DrGabriela: [85] - "That is why States will deny doing it. Its violates acceptable moral norms becaues it targets innocents. This is true even if the goal is to save lives or does so in fact."
Connecting clauses with two dashes, no spaces
- Giovanni33: [86] - "...claims with valid sources--for they are false claims... top experts in their field--we do give them a full..."
- Giovanni33: [87] - "...the paramilitary death squads--in 1967 Mario Sandoval..."
- Supergreenred: [88] - "...esp. when I have not even violated 3RR--yet he blocked me."
- DrGabriela: [89] - "...the broader construct of State-Terrorism--and indeed are so by these analysis--would be hard pressed to..."
Spontaneous (ab)use of the exclamation point
- Giovanni33: [90] - "But we have to be careful not to bloat it (easily done!)."
- Giovanni33: [91] - "It looks very good! Thank you. Finally the article is reading like an actual readable article on of all things, its actual subject matter! How apropos!"
- Giovanni33: [92] - "Untrue. Take a look. It is sourced!"
- DrGabriela: [93] - "I can not believe this same debate is happening here too! How many places is this same debate going on? Its crazy!"
- DrGabriela: [94] - "I looked and a lot looks very good!"
- Supergreenred: [95] - "Not, not sufficent time for discussion or consensus. Not even a day!"
- Professor33 (an old G33 sock): [96] - "Now I am banned? Wow. This is a new worthy story! ... But as of now im rather flabergasted!"
Accounts agreeing with each other
- Giovanni33: [97] - "I looked over the changes and like the other editor, the version by Dr.Gabriela is better."
- Giovanni33: [98] - "Completely agree." (in response to Supergreenred)
- Giovanni33: [99] - "I'm reverting too to Dr.Garbriela (except keeping corrections)." (edit summary)
- 76.102.72.153: [100] - "True but I think most opinions here echo Giovanni33's observations."
- 76.102.72.153: [101] - "restoring sourced information added by Giovanni33." (edit summary)
- DrGabriela: [102] - "I have to agree with user Giovanni33 on these points."
- DrGabriela: [103] - "I must concure with these thoughts but it would appear that we have reached an impasse with Ultramarine at this stage." (in response to Giovanni33)
- DrGabriela: [104] - "I believe Giovanni33 has articulated well the differences Ultramarine."
Accounts agreeing with each other - old school
- And now for a blast from the past (all the below are former confirmed G33 socks).
- Professor33: [105] - "Str177, your reply to Giovanni33 is not impressive."
- Professor33: [106] - "Well said, Giovanni."
- BelindaGong: [107] - "the edit summaries make sense to me, and Gio's arguments on the talk page are convincing." (edit summary)
- BelindaGong: [108] - "Contributions by Giovanni are relevant and intersting in this article."
- Freethinker99: [109] - "...the answer to your questions about the evidence has already been given many times, including recently above by Giovanni, and others."
- And a half-dozen more I left out...
Specific phrases
For each phrase below, I report the results of a Google search of Wikipedia, to establish a baseline. If you wish to duplicate the search, remember to surround the phrase with quotes.
"for ALL the deaths?"
- Out of many variations of this phrase in the surrounding discussion, only these two accounts use this particular variation, capitalizing "all" and tacking on a question mark.
- Giovanni33: 2008-04-23T19:22:20 - "...This op ed piece is not accurate, creates a straw man (who ever claims that the US is to be blamed for ALL the deaths?). Nonsense! ..."
- DrGabriela: 2008-04-21T01:47:08 - "Can you show me where it says the US is responsible for ALL the deaths? Perhaps I missed it."
"looks very good!"
- Google shows that this phrase - with the exclamation point - is very rare.
- Giovanni33: [110] - "It looks very good! Thank you."
- DrGabriela: [111] - "One thing for sure, a lot of information was taken out of the article very quickly. I looked and a lot looks very good!"
- Supergreenred (slighty different): [112] - "Yes, I'm happy with the new sources added to support the Sister Ortiz section. They look good."
"lets assume good faith"
- Note the lack of apostrophe. Also, note the frequent use of "also" before or after this phrase. Only a handful of Google hits.
- Giovanni33: [113] - "Lets assume good faith and focus on article content..."
- Giovanni33: [114] - "...but lets keep the principal of Occams Razor in mind and lets assume good faith, also."
- 67.188.208.203: [115] - "These accusations do not belong on the talk page. Also, lets assume good faith."
- Professor33 (an old G33 sock): [116] - "Lets assume good faith first before I make much ado about what may be nothing."
"many editors working together"
- Five Google hits total.
- Giovanni33: [117] - "...such as blanking entire sections that were carefully put together by many editors working together..."
- 76.102.72.153: [118] - "The section was balanced and the product of many editors working together."
"on principal"
- Many Google hits, but only a half-dozen that confuse "principle" with "principal".
- Giovanni33: [119] - "I have always been willing to compromise, but not on principals."
- Supergreenred: [120] - "Therefore, will restore the massive deletions on principal."
Specific phrases (lack of hyphenation)
Giovanni33 has a peculiar allergy to hyphenating compound words that should be hyphenated. His alternate accounts share his affliction. To wit:
"well referenced section"
- Google shows only a half-dozen hits without the hyphen.
- Giovanni33: [121] - "You make your claim to justify your blanking a well referenced section against consensus..."
- 76.102.72.153: [122] - "There is no basis to remove this well referenced section."
"counter point"
- Google says this is rarer than "counter-point", which itself is ten times rarer than "counterpoint".
- Giovanni33: [123] - "...but you can't deny its a central counter point to the dominant western pov..."
- DrGabriela: [124] - "Why not find a better source that makes a more intelligent counter point?"
"off topic material"
- Out of pages of Google hits for this phrase, all appear to use the hyphen.
- Giovanni33: [125] - "I removed the off topic material, per talk." (edit summary)
- 67.180.59.86: [126] - "this is off topic material. See talk on opposing view section." (edit summary)
- 76.102.72.153: (no "material") [127] - "I agree with the other editors here that this is SYN, and off topic."
"long standing"
- Google shows that the large majority of uses are hyphenated.
- Giovanni33: [128] - "...(the long standing version too)..."
- Supergreenred: [129] - "These are long standing additoins that were added through the consensus process with compromise."
"paint a POV picture"
- These are the only instances on Wikipedia of this unique phrase.
- Rafaelsfingers: [130] - "There's an unprincipled undercurrent of lumping all idealogical opponents together to paint a POV picture."
- Supergreenred: [131] - "rv. you are cherry picking only selective facts to paint a POV picture. BLP applies here." - (edit summary)
"over stating"
- Google says this is rarer than "over-stating", which itself is ten times rarer than "overstating".
- Supergreenred: [132] - "over stating controversial. Covered in section of definitions." (edit summary)
Evidence presented by Giovanni33
Evidence of innocence
Giovanni33
Lets summarize the evidence being used against me:
- 1. My block log is presented as relevant for consideration. I disagree. If anything my block log shows how much I’ve proven my ability to reform. Most of it, though, is wheel-warring, over issues not related to socket-puppets.
- 2. My past puppets are displayed in this case. It is true that I engaged in this behavior a long time ago. I regret that. I apologize for it. And, I have never done it again. I would not let down the trust given to me by Musical Linguist, whom I now greatly respect for her kindness and empathy. I wish she were still with us. I regret many unkind things I did and said at that time. Flo will remember that. But instead of creating a new un-tattered account that many advised that I do, I stuck with my original because I was told I’d be given a “tabula rasa”, a clean slate to start over. I ask that the slate indeed be wiped clean as much as possible in keeping with this; that these past puppetry violations from years ago accorded weight today.
- 3. It is mentioned that I’m currently under an Arbitration Remedy restriction of 1R/week, which I have violated. Its true I’ve slipped a couple of times by accident. But I edit a lot, and my overall record is one of compliance to these restrictions, without complaint.
- 4. It is alleged that there is much linguistic evidence below that I have again resorted to using socket-puppets out of frustration with the 1RR parole. This is a serious charge, and it should not be made lightly. I hope to show that a critical examination of the evidence against me does not satisfy conditions necessary for the conclusions that are reached. Indeed, I hope to show that it’s deeply flawed by confirmation bias. When one looks for exculpatory evidence, the case against me blows away lots of smoke and reveals no fire.
I will focus my evidence to address parts that are most relevant. There is much that has been presented by Ultramarine that less relevance. However, if there are serious and relevant elements that I’ve skipped over but need to be addressed, I’d be more than happy to respond to them as well. I may add to this as time permits.
Ultra's assertions
Ultramarine cite in his evidence that Supergreenred revealed his IP address to be in San Jose: address.[133] This appear to be true.
He then cites one of my old indefinitely blocked puppets, User:MikaM, as having also edited from San Jose[134]. Yet, the IP check on this does not show San Jose. As previously pointed out diff’s Ultramarine provides don’t always support his claims accurately, or don’t support it at all.
Ultramarine conclude that this shows that “Giovanni33 previously have moved away from San Francisco to avoid detection.” He repeats the same point: “San Jose instead of San Francisco showing the considerable efforts Giovanni33 makes to hide his sock puppetry.”
That would be a considerable effort, if true (not to mention expensive, gas is over $4/gal here). The evidence by Merzbow is more relevant, focused, and interesting, and makes th heart of he case, which I’ll examine in detail.
Edit timelines does not support charge of puppetry
Merzbow presents time-line evidence that alleges to show “neatly disjointed” editing activity. This would make sense if I had to drive an hour to San Jose back and forth. They would all have to be disjointed. However, it turns out that Merzbow admits that they aren’t really disjointed, because as he says, “they overlap by a few minutes.” Even so, that would be suspicious. But then we find he also lists exceptions that don’t match up to this theory at all, and are off by hours. However, other than these very significant facts, he concludes, “in general, they slot neatly and usually tightly between each other.” He explains the overlapping incidents as me trying to cover my tracks on purpose.
Being an intelligent fellow, Merzbow correctly anticipates a logical reply. Namely that it would be easy for me to use same method to “prove” that Ultramarine is my puppet, in a reductio ad absurdum. But he says that if “one compares the timing of a heavy editor undisputably not G33, like Ultramarine, to the above contributions” its not the same: “Periods of intense editing activity by these accounts usually abut each other very closely, but never overlap - except for two outliers in which they overlay very closely (said arse-covering).” His analysis of Ultramarine confesses some very similar findings only that there are more outliers. The problem with this is that one can simply turn up the “exception” allowance, fine-tunning adjustment for greater, “arse-covering,” no? The problem is that it doesn’t match neatly. There is an arbitrary selection and explanation of evidence to make it fit a preconceived conclusion, which could equally be stretched to fit any other heavy editor plus or minus how much “adjustments” we allow that don’t fit the theory. Of course, its always could be true that two events occurring at the same time that have no simple relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring roughly around the same time.
The technical explanation
Merzbow provides a technical explanation that is at odds Ultramarines theory. He says, “The below pattern can be explained by one person at one location, using different browsers or a second computer to edit. And one can easily have a desktop on a Comcast cable connection and a laptop on a DSL connection; or Remote Desktop into a work computer. With what I personally have, I could roleplay accounts from three different ISPs: one from my iPhone, one from cable, one from connecting through my work machine. But they would all be noted as coming from the same geographic area, as all these accounts do.”
I grant this may be technically possible, although I have some doubts about it. Perhaps an IT person can comment about it. It’s my understanding that a Remote Desktop into the office would not hide one’s home IP as that is still uses the home internet IP to connect to the remote work machine. I have a cable connection, so I don’t need a DSL as well. I don’ t have an i-Phone, either. I’m sure that the user-check information will show these characteristics. I edit only from my home and at work using the same account. I welcome an admin into my home for an inspection of my technical set up. All are welcome.
I will examine the evidence below, but I want to point out that on a few occasions I had an edit conflict while leaving a message on the talk page of an article at the same time one of my alleged socket-puppets was doing so. I’ll have to dig up that diff.
Also, I noticed that RafaelFingers left a message earlier on this evidence page at the time I happened to be attending this a performance of Sam Shepard's Curse of the Starving Class (http://www.act-sf.org/cursestarvingclass/SF) from 2pm to 4:30 pm. Since Rafaelfingers appears to have edited during this same time, Merzbow's theory that I'm editing from multiple ISP's, can be disproved. I know Arbcom has does not typically accept the kind of evidence that real courts would, but it’s an idea. I have my ticket still. It also occurred to me that since these other editors apparently are all from the bay area, a special wiki-meet could be proposed, and actually happen, in theory. Since I am innocent here I am willing to work with the committee through a neutral admin to prove my innocence. Perhaps though a Skype conference? I’ve met admins here on wiki-meets, and they might be willing to look into this first hand, if all parties are amiable. My point is that I have nothing to hide and I believe with enough investigation the truth will come out, and it does us no harm to look at possibilities for uncovering the truth. I’m willing to put in the effort and do the leg-work.
Linguistic evidence does not supports charge of puppetry
The evidence is based on, for example, that I “frequently misspells words, and will usually spell "it's" as "its" and "let's" as "lets", that I do not hyphenate compound words that need them, and particular phrases, etc. All of this evidence, I will show is very weak when one tries to find evidence that disproves the claims. I was surprised myself how easy it was. It turns out that the rarity of these examples are greatly exaggerated.
There is on exception, though: “to Paint a POV Picture.” Unlike the rest, this is a strong piece of evidence of a unique fingerprint. So either they are the same person, or one copied the other. I would like RafaelFingers to explain that since SuperGreenRed said it first, followed by Rafealfingers. My personal view of these accounts are that SuperGreenRed is an impersonator (more on that later) and the other two accounts are legitimate users.
But the rest of the evidence is interesting for what was left out as much as what was included. When I looked into it, I found this to be a strong case of confirmation bias. A case of the cherry picking fallacy. When controls are applied, this becomes clear. I’ll look at each one of these with a more scientific approach, using blinds.
Specific phrases (lack of hyphenation)
It’s claimed that, “Giovanni33 has a peculiar allergy to hyphenating compound words that should be hyphenated.” What stands out is not a comprehensive sample that shows frequency of this particular use, but rather just two example to match one account with the other. Well that is very easy to do. I can look for any editor and find a match under the same criteria.
Examples used:
"well referenced section"
This is said to be very rare. Merzbow states: “* Google shows only a half-dozen hits without the hyphen.” Then then gives one example where I use it in this fashion, along with one example from an IP user. Although Merzbow says they should be hyphenated, making it appear that it's actually a rare grammatical mistake, actually there is no agreed-upon guideline regarding the use of compound words in English; there is quite a variance among the closed form, hyphenated form, and open form of compound words. This is reflected among editor use, though out WP.
In fact, even our own WP:CITE policy page uses it without a hyphen: [135] - “In this respect well referenced articles can unfortunately suffer disproportionately in comparison to those not so well sourced.”
It's commonly used in this form by thousands of editors on wikipedia as my simple search revealed. In fact, even Merzbow used it in this way himself (to be shown below).
A less biased method
But, in order to avoid the same kind of cherry picking confirmation bias, I choose one aprops AfD page where the term would be used by many editors to see how its frequency is actually used. This is intended as a type of randomized controlled trial by looking at one page to avoid the same traps of the observer-expectancy effect that plague my Ultras and Merzbow's methods.
The page in question:[136]
The results of this experiment show that most editors use it the way I use, in its open form, without hyphens. This fact renders its use as evidence against me rather impotent. Yes, I have used it in this form---along with Merzbow, and most other editors. So to pick out an example where I share this trait with another does nothing to established a basis of connecting me to that person. It's insufficient.
From this one page [137] we find 15 instances of the open form vs 7 hyphenated forms:"
- 1. Clarityfiend:
“…Seems to be well sourced and is a legitimate topic…Clarityfiend 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Liftarn:
“…Notable subject and well referenced article…”
3. JForget:
“…very notable and well referenced (probably the most referenced Afd nominated article I've seen so far)-JForget 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Sfacets:
Keep - well referenced. If there are valid references naming the US as a state terrorist, what else is there to say? To negate what these sources say, however, would be OR and POV-pushing. Sfacets 05:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
5. SixOfDiamonds :
“…The article is well documented…”--SixOfDiamonds 17:28, 25 June 2007
6.Badagnani:
Article is well sourced, notable, and of good quality. Six nominations for deletion is ridiculous and this sort of disruptive behavior on behalf of the current nominator should not be permitted. Badagnani 22:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
7.Reaper X:
… well referenced and a notable topic…The nominator appears to be big on deleting articles that conspire and accuse the USA of wrong-doing, although I won't go as far as accusing them of violationg WP:POINT…-- Reaper X 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
8.JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh!”:
“…The reason why it is well sourced, it combines other articles to do it. Can we write Alleged State terrorism by France as I have shown JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)”
9.EliminatorJR Talk:
“…It's well sourced in that it has no less than 93 external references…EliminatorJR Talk 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)”
10.Mandsford:
“…Well sourced, survived six deletion attempts so far, and another one will happen again soon, I'm sure... Mandsford 00:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
11.≈ jossi ≈ (talk):
“… well researched material…” ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
12.Henrik
“…Article is well referenced, verifiable by reliable sources and fundamentally encyclopaedic…Henrik 10:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
13.Badagnani:
“…This article is clearly well sourced…”Badagnani 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
14.Watchdogb:
Strong keep Well sourced article…Watchdogb 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
15.#Wayne:
Strong Keep - Well cited article. In fact it is better cited and more NPOV than many of the more controversial articles. From what I've read of the discussions in Talk I feel it comes down to whether WP wants to be an American Encyclopedia or a World Encyclopedia…Wayne 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
There are more but you get the point. Conclusion? More editors used the non-hyphened (open) form of this compound word. Now, how many were using the ‘proper” hyphened form? Only 7, less than half.
This is the result we get when we don’t cherry pick. I selected one page dealing with the same issue where the term is phrase is likely to be used. The form of compound word it's used is mostly open. The page, again is here: [138] Why is it that something that is so common was chosen as the best evidence against me? Not for want of looking. Basically anything that confirmed the bias was selected and anything that didn't match up was ignored. A classic case of Morton's demon, where one can end up believing that the earth is flat and only a few thousand years old.
Now, its true Merzbow prefers to use the hyphened form most of the times. He seems to be a stickler for proper grammar. But guess what if I cherry pick? You guessed it. I can find that rare example. See:
- Merzbow:
[139] - "Good article, well referenced, Support. " Or almost anyone else I want to link:
- Jayig:
[140] - “…A well referenced article about a broadly known phenomenon. Jayjg (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, if I cherry pick I can find many instances where I do use the hyphen for compound words, even though I’m alleged to be allergic to such use, to prove the opposite: [141] [142][143]
In summation this method is flawed, an example of Morton's demon guarding against what is seen and not seen. A more scientific survey shows that this evidence has no weight to it, and when the smoke is cleared, it turns out to be only dry-ice creating it. The same is true for these other too common phrases found by many editors alike:
"counter point"
My illustration above is particularly true when only one example of my using this phrase is matched up with only one example by another editor and a connection is purported to be established as a result. That's very weak, but again, without a systematic survey and larger pool, it's almost meaningless (unless it's really rare or unique--a linguistic fingerprint).
Some examples of others using this phrase:
- 1.Maury:
[144] - It is a matter of point and counter point. Many notable historians (and other professions) disagree with one another. Look to religious beliefs for an easy example. This is nothing new but in what I see there is no point and counter point -- it is a one-sided viewpoint."
- 2.Kuru:
[145] “No counter point?”Kuru talk 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- 3.Bfisk:
[146] - “…Thus where is the counter point to this Trend following article? Bfisk (talk • contribs) 05:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)”
- 4.RoyBoy:
[147] - “.. quickly descend into bickering anarchy; with points, counter points and counter-counter points.”
- 5.Wildnox:
[148] - “I'm gonna try to find counter point sources, if not I'll at least try to provide counter point…”
Cites grammar/writing examples, of "its", "lets" as evidence
Merzbow shows many examples of these accounts using “lets” and “its” without the apostrophe. But when I looked for counter examples, not only did I find them, but I found these errors to be very common. I will list them out here as I did the others above, if asked to, although I think it’s a waste of time and space.
This was equally true with these phrases that follow the same patterns and thus suffer from the same flaw, which I provide a few examples of each to match what was presented as evidence against me.
"looks very good!"
- Shabranigdo
[149]- “looks very good…” Over 200k hits on google: [150]
"lets assume good faith"
- SatuSuro:
[151] - “Lets assume good faith”
"off topic material" Off Topic vs. Off-Topic seem to be equally common: [152]
In fact our own WP entry on the subject uses it in its open form (no hyphens): [153] - “The term "off topic" is sometimes used to indicate a discussion venue where anything other than matters specifically addressed by the website in question are addressed.”
The pattern is the same for the rest of these:
"many editors working together" "on principal" "well referenced section" "over stating" "long standing"
The only one that is not common is this phrase and thus is good evidence is this one:
"paint a POV picture"
But in this case, I am not alleged to have ever used it so its hardly evidence against me.
The theories employed by both Ulra and Merzbow while at odds with each other share similar methodological flaws, and logical fallacies. Stringing together selected material in such a small sample pool (in many cases a single example of each) of some rather common expressions, and then deriving a causal connection, interpreting a meaning from it, will yield any results that one wants to look for, and look impressive on the surface, a type of Texas sharpshooter fallacy. In contrast, the truth of the matter may even strain common sense, as does the birthday paradox.
Tables Turned?
For fun, here is an alternate theory, using the existing evidence I can put together based on cherry picking things I can also raise eye brows. I only do this to illustrate the flawed method being employed. It's an example of how tricky this matter is, and I think it adds to reasonable doubt of this case against me.
Consider these facts.
Merzbow’s IP was revealed and a search shows it to be in the same Geographical Location as these alleged socket-puppets, but in particular SuperGreenRed: [154] I looked it up here: [155]
Contained within Ultra’s evidence above, SuperGreenRed is in San Jose. This is closer to Merzbow than to myself (Sunnyvale and San Jose are right next to each other). Merzbow already said he is able to play many roles with the technical means he has at his disposal.
Linguistic Evidence supporting Puppetry:
A rather uncommon phrase, much more uncommon than those used against me:
- Supergreenred:
[156] - “muhahahaa now you know my IP”
- Merzbow:
[157] - “muhahaha now everyone knows my IP”
To continue this cherry picking method, I did some more searching.
- Merbow:
[158] - “Sheesh, both sides are off-track here.”
- Supergreenred:
[159] - “Sheesh. This is a big waste of time. Wikipedia is seriously getting off-track…”
- Supergreenred:
[160] - “At least until there are new FACTS.”
- Merbow:
[161] -“…should be allowed to quote FACTS about what
Also, take a look at this regarding Merzbow's point of raising the question of the use of “its” vs. “It’s” interacting with SuperGreenRed about this issue; it is a convenient catch, but odd:[162]
Again, I am not making any accusations based on such a specious methodology. These are surely coincidences, but they illustrate the flawed nature of using it to create appearances, and it may allow Merzbow to see how it feels. I certainly don't like this.
Lastly, when we look at my edits vs these alleged puppets edits, we see while they share a similar POV on many articles, they also edit on their own areas of interest which I do not share. Likewise, I edit in areas they do not share. So even their editing behavior does not mirror mine. The exception if SuperGreenRed, which I would agree is does seem to be an impersonator, and under policy can be assumed to be connected to me by behavior—even if I have no control over it. I presented this evidence in my opening statement before. Ultra and Merz have repeated things here, but it's a waste of space. But I may add it here later, if it would help me.
In conclusion, despite appearance, the truth is the truth and I hope it does set me free. I am willing to produce further evidence and do what it takes to have truth prevail. The doubts I raised do provide a reasonable application of the assumption of good faith, a cherished WP core policy that we all embrace, which should allow me to continue to be a member in good standing. The unblocking admin himself said he had too many doubts. He said that several admins talked to him who were familiar with my editing style, who did not believe I was socking again. I think those admins should be consulted with for their insight. Since I’m innocent I have nothing to fear and I want to fully cooperate as is deemed necessary to clear my name of these suspicions.
Thanks you.