John Smith's (talk | contribs) |
Giovanni33 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
||
::Agreed - for both the evidence and workshop pages. [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] ([[User talk:John Smith's|talk]]) 21:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
::Agreed - for both the evidence and workshop pages. [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] ([[User talk:John Smith's|talk]]) 21:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
::'''Opposed''' This is not established. One does not get to unilaterally brand an opponent a sock in order to suppress their evidence. At least you are consistent with your method of making bad-faith accusations against other editors, but your word does not make it an established fact.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Proposed temporary injunctions== |
==Proposed temporary injunctions== |
Revision as of 22:36, 15 May 2008
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.
Motions and requests by the parties
Improper exclusion of involved parties
1) For obvious reasons I motion that the following users be officially made parties to this case, and provided with the same links to this case as the other involved parties have been:
- Rafaelsfingers (talk · contribs)
- Supergreenred (talk · contribs)
- DrGabriela (talk · contribs)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Links to this case have now been provided to these accounts.Ultramarine (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- You did not give me a link to this place. I had to find it myself. This is not very helpful to have to find this myself especially when it is accusing me of being someone else. Not very professional.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure youve edited this arbcom proceeding before and knew exactly where it was. --DHeyward (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why are you so sure, DHeyward? In fact he did not edit here before, until just this time. And, he is correct: Ultramarine, despite what he said, did not notify these other parties properly, i.e. they were ever even given links to this page. We can assume the other involved parties may not know about this page, and this should be corrected asap.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I had a look at this and Supergreenred, DrGabriela and Rafaelsfingers were notified of the top page of the arbitration case on 12th May by Ultramarine - namely Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33. That appears quite proper in my opinion. There is no way any of them can claim they were unable to find the Workshop or Evidence pages given that they're mentioned very clearly in the lead section.
- Furthermore Rafaelsfingers found his way on to the Evidence page on 5th May to provide evidence. There is also a link to the Workshop on the Evidence page. It is ridiculous to imply that users must be constantly prodded to go use various pages. John Smith's (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look again. None of them were provided the links to this page. The clerk's message provided links to all the relevant pages, Ultra's did not. Very improper, very wrong, and very wrong of you do deny these basic procedural errors.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a big deal now, but the only reason any of those people were notified was because I asked that this happen. When the case was filed, Ultramarine did not notify anyone except Giovanni33. I asked him to notify the accused sock accounts (WM Connolley then jumped in and said it was not necessary because we "knew" the other accounts were socks, an interesting line or reasoning) and then Ultra told the various accused sock accounts he had filed a case. Because they were not made parties to the case they were not notified that the case had been accepted and opened. I pointed this out the Evidence talk page, whereby the clerk, AGK, explained that they should have been added as parties and Ultra said he forgot to do this, and then told them the case was opened (the May 12th thing to which you refer). So, yes, there was a real problem telling these accounts what was going on (which almost certainly stemmed from an assumption going in that they were socks). Now everyone knows so it's fine, but Ultra apparently initially believed it was unnecessary to tell Rafaelsfingers et. al. because the accounts were Giovanni socks. Had I not asked him to I assume he would never have informed them. Interestingly, even now the accused sock accounts are still not parties to the case, even though we are talking about banning them all (presumably, no one's even bothered to craft that as a remedy as yet, oddly enough).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look again. None of them were provided the links to this page. The clerk's message provided links to all the relevant pages, Ultra's did not. Very improper, very wrong, and very wrong of you do deny these basic procedural errors.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure youve edited this arbcom proceeding before and knew exactly where it was. --DHeyward (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- You did not give me a link to this place. I had to find it myself. This is not very helpful to have to find this myself especially when it is accusing me of being someone else. Not very professional.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Links to this case have now been provided to these accounts.Ultramarine (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- This has been a serious procedural error. These parties were not informed that the arbitration was accepted. See Dr.Gabriela's talk page where he is not even aware that the request for arbitration was even accepted.[[1]] We cannot just assume that these accounts are in fact socks before a fair hearing and judgement process has been completed. BernardL (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- A further comment. On May 4 I see that 8 notices of the opening of the arbitration were sent but none of these notices were sent to accounts alleged as sockpuppets.[[2]] I wonder how this can be explained?BernardL (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Motion for User Check Requested
2) Per evidence page discussion and request by Merzbow, I request a user check on Rafaelfinger's edit here: [3]Or any of his latest edits from 2:25 to 2:45:[4] What we want to find out if this user edited from their home comcast ISP, or a wireless device during these times. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Agree. A checkuser on these edits could further clarify whether or not the allegations are true.BernardL (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Motion to allow time for evidence prior to decision
3) There has hardly been enough time for evidence concerning this case. In fact, several of the affected editors have only been notified of this case a couple of days ago. As I intent to arrange real life evidence, this will take a while to gather. Decisions prior to viewing all the relevant evidence are premature, and jumping-the-gun.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- All of the sock puppet accounts have been aware of the RfA since May 2 when they were notified on their talk page. Rafaelsfingers made a response to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence on May 5. DrGabriela made a response to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence on May 11. So they were obviously aware that the Arbitration case was open before being notified on their talk page on May 12. They have also already presented evidence. That leaves Supergreenred who was certainly aware of the RfA since he commented on it on my talk page on May 5. He has not made any edit at all to Wikipedia since. Giovanni33 claims that Supergreenred is a sock puppet of Merbow, which would make Supergreenred an opposing editor, so strange that Giovanni33 wants contributions from Supergreenred.
- In short these accounts have already presented their evidence or have not made any contributions to Wikipedia for more than a week despite knowledge of an ongoing RfA which any serious editor would and should not ignore.Ultramarine (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- First, the evidence stage is not closed - it is on-going. Editors may start using the Workshop whenever they want to, but it doesn't mean no one can then present further evidence.
- Second, I am not sure what "real life evidence" you could possibly provide to change the case. Are you planning to meet with people you claim run the other accounts? That wouldn't be evidence of much, because they could be friends of yours posing as the editors, or indeed really be the editors and your meatpuppets.
- At the very least you should say what you intend to do, when you intend to do it and what you hope to show. John Smith's (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The committee will need to weigh in on the question of whether or not they will accept "real-life evidence" and if so what they would accept (they might not want Giovanni to set the rules, for example). This is really between the committee and Giovanni (and possibly others). And John, it's not necessary for you to weigh in on this issue every time it's brought up, or to comment on everything Giovanni says. You are a bit too concerned with his every move for my taste. Personally I find it a bit unseemly given the past issues between you two. I'm sure you will disagree, but that's how it looks from where I sit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- BigT, you are contradicting yourself. You imply that is not for me to make a comment, yet you said "and possibly others". I am "an other", am I not? Or did you mean "anyone other than myself"? Furthermore there is a section here for other users to make comments on motions. I am not aware of there being "private motions" that others cannot comment on.
- In regards to your other comments, I think you are overreacting. I commented once on this before when you raised it. Now that Giovanni has made a formal motion, I have reiterated some points and asked other necessary questions. As for being "too concerned with his every move", you are exaggerating. I provided my evidence - I then saw that Giovanni had clearly written a large amount over the evidence limit - there's a big banner at the top of the page on the guidelines. I asked the clerk about it - job done. John Smith's (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- John, you are in major denial if you do not see a valid bases in BitT's comments. The fact is that you wiki-stalked me everywhere I go to make comments and bicker with me. I've asked you many times to desist in the past, as you recall. It's nothing personal, just very annoying, in an obsessive-like manner. I would appreciate it if you would tone it down a bit.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Giovanni, please do not misrepresent the facts. I found out about the arbitration case and then decided to leave some evidence. I saw your comments given they were above where I would have written mine and could see they were significantly over the limit - I raised a query on it. I also then made a comment on this motion, given that I have been looking at this page. That is all quite normal. I suggest you calm down. John Smith's (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's your view of the situation John, mine is different. When I said "and possibly others" I was referring to the possibility that the other accounts are operated by people other than Giovanni and that they would want to be involved in some sort of "real world" evidence. I was not referring to you, me, or anyone else here who is not accused of sockpuppetry (Merzbow is technically accused I guess, though I imagine he feels fairly comfortable letting the evidence against him speak for itself). At any rate I made my point and you are now free to ignore it (and apparently you have, since you immediately commented on every proposal Giovanni made below, which makes my point).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have not ignored your point, I find it misplaced. To say that I should ignore proposals made by Giovanni when I have already commented on proposals made by other editors on this page is not logical nor is it in keeping with the project's values. John Smith's (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's your view of the situation John, mine is different. When I said "and possibly others" I was referring to the possibility that the other accounts are operated by people other than Giovanni and that they would want to be involved in some sort of "real world" evidence. I was not referring to you, me, or anyone else here who is not accused of sockpuppetry (Merzbow is technically accused I guess, though I imagine he feels fairly comfortable letting the evidence against him speak for itself). At any rate I made my point and you are now free to ignore it (and apparently you have, since you immediately commented on every proposal Giovanni made below, which makes my point).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Giovanni, please do not misrepresent the facts. I found out about the arbitration case and then decided to leave some evidence. I saw your comments given they were above where I would have written mine and could see they were significantly over the limit - I raised a query on it. I also then made a comment on this motion, given that I have been looking at this page. That is all quite normal. I suggest you calm down. John Smith's (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- John, you are in major denial if you do not see a valid bases in BitT's comments. The fact is that you wiki-stalked me everywhere I go to make comments and bicker with me. I've asked you many times to desist in the past, as you recall. It's nothing personal, just very annoying, in an obsessive-like manner. I would appreciate it if you would tone it down a bit.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The committee will need to weigh in on the question of whether or not they will accept "real-life evidence" and if so what they would accept (they might not want Giovanni to set the rules, for example). This is really between the committee and Giovanni (and possibly others). And John, it's not necessary for you to weigh in on this issue every time it's brought up, or to comment on everything Giovanni says. You are a bit too concerned with his every move for my taste. Personally I find it a bit unseemly given the past issues between you two. I'm sure you will disagree, but that's how it looks from where I sit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Up to the Arbs, but as I said on Evidence talk, the on-wiki evidence alone is enough to establish abusive meatpuppetry on G33's behalf as defined in WP:SOCK even if (in the incredibly unlikely case) he isn't the person behind these accounts. I am also confident G33 would do everything in his means to fake any supposed "real-life" evidence, including having friends "pose" as owners of these other accounts (as he's told us, the Bay Area is full of people who agree with him, and he's well-connected too). The incidents with SGR's faked post that G33 used as evidence and DrGabriela's faked medical edits (both outlined in my Evidence section) I think demonstrate the lengths he is willing to go to deceive this community. Proceed with caution. - Merzbow (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- So basically you're saying that I'm guilty even if I'm innocent. If I can find more evidence that will point to my innocence, if not exonerate me completely, then this should be allowed. We have nothing to fear by seeking the truth. I can confident that, if allowed, I can refute an interpretation of the evidence that points to my guilt. Since the evidence relies upon the assumption of socket-puppetry (linguistic similarities, etc), if I can establish that these are separate editors, and we can confirm each of their IP's as matching with previous posts from their own machines, it would disprove the charges against me. I suppose you can then say that I used 'remote desktop" into each of these separate editors computers, but occams razor comes in to play here, the question of what is more probable.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- For example, you were open to seeing evidence that I attended the play and that Rafaelfingers edited at the same time using his home comcast ISP account. A user check motion above would answer that, and it's a simple thing.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Every editor deserves a reasonable span of time to present a defense. Giovanni, is there a specific time frame you have in mind? Specifics would be useful. DurovaCharge! 10:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reject this, please, because it's a stalling tactic. Giovanni33 is not responsible to "defend" their single-purpose editing allies. Jehochman Talk 11:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not to speak for Giovanni, but as to Durova's question it seems that Giovanni is most interested in presenting some sort of "real world" evidence to the committee as he mentioned in his statement on the evidence page. I left a question for the Arbs on the evidence talk page a couple of days ago asking if they would be open to such evidence assuming there was some workable way to present it. I gather they're a bit backlogged right now so there's no reply as yet, but presumably the question of time frame is somewhat dependent on when the Arbs weigh in on the issue of "real world" evidence. That kind of thing can be gamed as we all know, and presumably if the committee would accept that kind of evidence they would have some specific requirements or methodology in mind. It probably doesn't make much sense to present anything like that until someone from the committee explains whether or not they will accept it and what form it should take if they would.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- If no defense is possible then there is nothing to be lost by a week or two of delay: the lack of new information will have the advantage of demonstrating that this editor got a fair hearing. That may make a difference to uninvolved observers and, with equal pertinence, make a difference to Giovanni33 himself. You believe he is socking: why should he not sock with added determination if he believes arbitration is unfair? On the other hand, suppose for a moment that he is innocent of at least some of these allegations, and he knows that appearances are against him. Arbitration cases have taken unexpected turns before; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson where one admittedly difficult editor turned out to have been targeted for a joe jobbing attack by a long term vandal and was simultaneously getting needled by a community banned editor's sockpuppet. This case hasn't been open very long, and the benefits of a moderate extension outweigh the risks. DurovaCharge! 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Durova I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me or Jehochman or both, but just to be clear I'm fully in favor of giving Giovanni time to present some sort of real-world evidence. I'm not fully convinced that he is socking, in part because he is so adamant about arranging some sort of meet-up to prove his innocence. My only point is that I think we could use some direction from ArbCom on the issue of real-world evidence.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, a week or two of delay could allow Giovanni to potentially falsify some evidence to distract the arbitrators. However, they already have a lot on their plate so I do not think they are going to rush into voting on remedies anytime soon. If Giovanni has specific evidence he thinks might be useful he can compile it now - he doesn't need the arbitrators' permission to do that. If he gets it ready and they don't accept it then it doesn't make a difference. BigT said something about methodology - I can't see how the arbitrators can make Giovanni compile evidence in a particular way. If he's going to fake it, he's going to fake it. If he doesn't then he won't.
- On the point about socking even more, why would he behave if he was given more time to find a way to avoid remedies based on what he had actually done? That doesn't make sense. Or maybe you were trying to say something else? John Smith's (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Methodology is important so it's done right, and in manner that will be acceptable. Think of it as setting up a scientific experiment, to test out a hypothesis. I don't want there to be continued suspicions that I'm "faking" anything. My interest is in having the full truth come out, or as much as is possible, no matter what is ultimately decided. While I think that it's possible to arrive at a wrong decision for the right reasons, I have confidence that the arbitrators are fair enough to allow an innocent person the ability to prove that, and to judge accordingly. There are many ways to set up a method that will rule out "faking." Based on the different ideas of what would be acceptable, I can then see if it's possible to implement them. I have some of my own but would be happy to hear others ideas.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- You still haven't said what it is that you want to do. How can anyone agree upon/suggest a methodology based on the extremely vague term of getting "real life evidence"? Just say what you plan to do. John Smith's (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Methodology is important so it's done right, and in manner that will be acceptable. Think of it as setting up a scientific experiment, to test out a hypothesis. I don't want there to be continued suspicions that I'm "faking" anything. My interest is in having the full truth come out, or as much as is possible, no matter what is ultimately decided. While I think that it's possible to arrive at a wrong decision for the right reasons, I have confidence that the arbitrators are fair enough to allow an innocent person the ability to prove that, and to judge accordingly. There are many ways to set up a method that will rule out "faking." Based on the different ideas of what would be acceptable, I can then see if it's possible to implement them. I have some of my own but would be happy to hear others ideas.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- If no defense is possible then there is nothing to be lost by a week or two of delay: the lack of new information will have the advantage of demonstrating that this editor got a fair hearing. That may make a difference to uninvolved observers and, with equal pertinence, make a difference to Giovanni33 himself. You believe he is socking: why should he not sock with added determination if he believes arbitration is unfair? On the other hand, suppose for a moment that he is innocent of at least some of these allegations, and he knows that appearances are against him. Arbitration cases have taken unexpected turns before; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson where one admittedly difficult editor turned out to have been targeted for a joe jobbing attack by a long term vandal and was simultaneously getting needled by a community banned editor's sockpuppet. This case hasn't been open very long, and the benefits of a moderate extension outweigh the risks. DurovaCharge! 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not to speak for Giovanni, but as to Durova's question it seems that Giovanni is most interested in presenting some sort of "real world" evidence to the committee as he mentioned in his statement on the evidence page. I left a question for the Arbs on the evidence talk page a couple of days ago asking if they would be open to such evidence assuming there was some workable way to present it. I gather they're a bit backlogged right now so there's no reply as yet, but presumably the question of time frame is somewhat dependent on when the Arbs weigh in on the issue of "real world" evidence. That kind of thing can be gamed as we all know, and presumably if the committee would accept that kind of evidence they would have some specific requirements or methodology in mind. It probably doesn't make much sense to present anything like that until someone from the committee explains whether or not they will accept it and what form it should take if they would.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Remove User:I Write Stuff comments
He is a sock of an indef banned user and has been indef banned. His comments should be removed as he is not allowed to participate. --DHeyward (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Agreed - for both the evidence and workshop pages. John Smith's (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Opposed This is not established. One does not get to unilaterally brand an opponent a sock in order to suppress their evidence. At least you are consistent with your method of making bad-faith accusations against other editors, but your word does not make it an established fact.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposals by Kirill Lokshin
Proposed principles
Compliance
1) All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Sockpuppetry
2) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited.
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Who's who
3) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors with very similar behavior are sock-puppets, meat-puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor.
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed.Biophys (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question. To what extent have procedures for assessment been thoroughly scrutinized and discussed by the community of administrators to safeguard against the possibility that someone innocent may be mistakenly condemned? What policies and procedures have been worked out beforehand, specifically regarding behavioral evidence of sockpuppetry, to ensure procedural fairness?BernardL (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, but apply carefully here. As a principle this is certainly true. However it should be applied with some level of discretion and discrimination in this case. Those presenting this case have swept up every IP and account that has agreed with Giovanni and lives in Northern California. It is possible that all of these are related to Giovanni, but any number of them might also not be. If one or more of the accounts in question have not been truly disruptive (beyond agreeing with Giovanni, which is not in and of itself disruptive), and if they actively protest their innocence the committee should be open to the possibility that not everyone caught up in this dragnet is a sock.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the only thing they do is agree with Giovanni (i.e. SPA), then it makes no difference whether they are disruptive. The odd piece is that there don't seem to be a lot of SPA accounts from Northern California that don't agree with Giovanni. But even the Northern Cal thing is a red herring. Bottom line is they are Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets who seem to have a single purpose here and it's not build the encyclopedia, but rather support Giovanni. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- The odd piece is that there don't seem to be a lot of SPA accounts from Northern California that don't agree with Giovanni If you didn't know any better and only went by these SPA accounts, you would think northern california was full of left wing peacenick democrats, wouldnt you? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting fact: In 2003, california had a population of 35 million, with over 50% of those online. The closest state was New York with 19 million population and 58% online. That would mean that California had more people online, then people in New York City, on or offline. To take a segment, and state that all of their users that would agree with Giovanni33, are Giovanni33, could be seen as worse then a large segment IP block. Effectively lumping 100's of people into one Giovanni --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- We have a lot of revolutionary minded people in the bay area. There is no surprise to me that we should expect to see more editors from this area interested in this subject with this POV. Why do some think this is so strange? I choose to live here for this reason and I'm happy to be a part of a progressive culture. The only bad part is that we are still part of the US (can't be perfect).Rafaelsfingers (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting fact: In 2003, california had a population of 35 million, with over 50% of those online. The closest state was New York with 19 million population and 58% online. That would mean that California had more people online, then people in New York City, on or offline. To take a segment, and state that all of their users that would agree with Giovanni33, are Giovanni33, could be seen as worse then a large segment IP block. Effectively lumping 100's of people into one Giovanni --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The odd piece is that there don't seem to be a lot of SPA accounts from Northern California that don't agree with Giovanni If you didn't know any better and only went by these SPA accounts, you would think northern california was full of left wing peacenick democrats, wouldnt you? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- A couple of the accounts seem to be nothing more than SPA's of some kind, I agree. I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case though with DrGabriela based on their contributions. That user has contributed to some medical related articles, and I don't think Giovanni has ever had anything to do with those sort of subjects - i.e. agreeing with Giovanni is not the only thing this user does. DrGabriela may be a Giovanni sock or some other sock or SPA, but it is possible that they are not and it's a fact that that user has asserted innocence. If they are to be banned, we need a specific finding that they are a sock or meatpuppet of Giovanni or a disruptive SPA. I'm just asking for some precision here with respect to findings of fact (I think the imprecision stems somewhat from the nature of the evidence). If the committee believes that every account named in this case is a sock or meatpuppet of Giovanni then they ought to say that, otherwise what is the basis for indef blocking (presumably the remedy that would be applied) those accounts once the case is over?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, but this probably goes without saying; there's no way ArbCom is going to sanction any account without specifically saying why. (And BTW it is five minutes of work to pick some random non-FA medical article, and add two lines to it one pulls from an online search). - Merzbow (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well what do you know, my suspicions proved correct. "Doctor" Gabriela's addition to Blocking antibody here was copied word-for-word out of a medical dictionary, available online here. Another edit of hers I picked at random also is a similar copyvio. Going to add this to evidence. - Merzbow (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec with Merzbow's last edit, principle of what I'm saying here still applies, new info re: the Gabriela account is revealing though). Sure, and maybe that's what happened with the DrGabriela account, but possibly not. I'm only harping on this because throughout this case there seems to have been a bit of an assumption that all of the accounts were in fact socks (e.g. not informing them that a case had been filed at first, and never informing them that it had been opened). Maybe they all are, that's quite possible. Right now the only FoF from Kirill (and I assume he's writing for the committee because I think he often lays out workshop findings) relates strictly to Giovanni, not the other accounts. If and when this is rectified then there's no problem, but that's why I'm commenting here and on Kirill's FoF 1. DHeyward's first FoF is actually more along the lines of what I think is required if the committee's position is that all of the accounts are sock or meatpuppets.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well what do you know, my suspicions proved correct. "Doctor" Gabriela's addition to Blocking antibody here was copied word-for-word out of a medical dictionary, available online here. Another edit of hers I picked at random also is a similar copyvio. Going to add this to evidence. - Merzbow (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, but this probably goes without saying; there's no way ArbCom is going to sanction any account without specifically saying why. (And BTW it is five minutes of work to pick some random non-FA medical article, and add two lines to it one pulls from an online search). - Merzbow (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- If the only thing they do is agree with Giovanni (i.e. SPA), then it makes no difference whether they are disruptive. The odd piece is that there don't seem to be a lot of SPA accounts from Northern California that don't agree with Giovanni. But even the Northern Cal thing is a red herring. Bottom line is they are Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets who seem to have a single purpose here and it's not build the encyclopedia, but rather support Giovanni. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::So the history of the DrGabriela account is especially troubling. When it first appeared, Giovanni denied and protested that he did not know them. It was simply a random person who agreed with him. Then they accidentally edited using an IP and it was the same as Giovanni's. Giovanni then changes his story and says it's his wife. It is tedious to try and discern whether DrGabriela is actually a separate person but doesn't matter though because it would clearly qualify as a meat puppet. The lies about the affiliation between Gabriela/Giovanni echo familiarly as Giovanni protests he does not know these other random SPAs. --DHeyward (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2008 Oops, there are so many socks I seem to have confused this one with BelindaGong. My mistake. --DHeyward (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- In reply to BernardL concern, I must remind that WP is not a justice system. Arbcomm will mostly address the question if the activities by Giovanni and his alleged puppets cause more harm than good for the project. "Doctor Gabrella" looks very much as puppet. Her knowledge of biology does not go beyond the high school level judging from her edits, even if the texts were not copied from the other sites.Biophys (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Merzbow's new evidence re: DrGabriela is particularly telling. I'm still glad I brought up my concerns with that account though because in the end better evidence was produced.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- In reply to BernardL concern, I must remind that WP is not a justice system. Arbcomm will mostly address the question if the activities by Giovanni and his alleged puppets cause more harm than good for the project. "Doctor Gabrella" looks very much as puppet. Her knowledge of biology does not go beyond the high school level judging from her edits, even if the texts were not copied from the other sites.Biophys (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let's suppose that Merzbow's evidence concerning Gabriela's plagiarism does amount to concrete evidence that the Gabriela account is inauthentic. It seems to me that the desperation to railroad Giovanni has impaired the objectivity of editors so much that they cannot even bring themselves to consider, let alone mention, an explanation that seems quite plausible- namely that Gabriela could be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of user:Stoneputothesky. The shared interest in the Philippines certainly suggests this. So I would suggest that first, the techies look closely at the locations for the IP's that were specifically used during the episode two nights ago when Giovanni and Gabriela appeared at the same time on the "Allegations" talkpage. Does a location match on that particular editing session match the locations of previous editing session(s) that were supposedly identified as Northern California? I know next to nothing about this techie stuff but i do know that anonymizers exist- is there something about them that could suggest that the account was editing in Northern California when he was in reality editing from somewhere else?BernardL (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- FYI Wikipedia blocks anonymisers. I don't know how, but apparently anyone using one can't edit a page. And Stone's sockpuppetry, AFAIK, was not very sophisticated - the accounts were marked by checkuser as "likely" or "confirmed". So unless he's suddenly turned into a technical wizz-kid and is able to trick the checkuser system into thinking he's editing over 6,000 miles away from Taiwan, it's highly unlikely the accounts are his sockpuppets. As for meatpuppets, well they obviously can be anyone's. But it's worth noting that DrGabriella has helped Giovanni out on a number of pages, whereas I can't see that account doing the same for Stone. John Smith's (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Supposing again that the Gabriela account was inauthentic I do not think it constitutes very sophisticated sock use, with the plagiarism. It is also worth mentioning the early edits, months ago, before any interaction on pages that Gio edited, of that Gabriela account on the page of the Philippine communist revolutionary Jose Maria Sison. (I might have got the name slightly wrong.) To Merzbow, what I am wondering is if the talkpage session from the other evening has yet been reconfirmed as having the same location for Gabriela as previously? In plain language please, I do not understand the technical acronyms so well. BernardL (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree - So if I want to make you ban I just have to edit with your agenda? You are suggesting that a suspect is enough to make a sanction, it is a principle which we can find only within dictatorships.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose until my queries about proper forethought and safeguards are answered straightforwardly and satisfactorily. BernardL (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support although I would not include general revert warring as evidence of the "same types of disruptive edits" as this occurs all the time between two camps when there is a content dispute. I'd want to see behavior that was very specific, or else this risks treating large groups people with the same culural memes as if were they the same person. -- Kendrick7talk 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Giovanni33
1) There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in sockpuppetry or some other form of proxy editing prohibited by policy.
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I think you're going to have to have a FoF that says "the following accounts are sock or meatpuppets of Giovanni33." The evidence in this case is arguably stronger for some accounts than others, and some are protesting their innocence. The status quo as of right now is that all of these accounts are separate. If the committee decides that some or all of the accounts described here are Giovanni socks then you need a finding of fact to that effect. I do not think it acceptable to simply state "Giovanni33 has repeatedly engaged in sockpuppetry or some other form of proxy editing" and then block all of the accounts that have been mentioned in this case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure why this is written as just sockpuppetry. There is overwhelming evidence that they are at least meatpuppets and I don't think policy distinguishes much between the two. Checkuser is inconclusive for the specific checks that checkuser does. But we are not automatons that can only respond to the 1/0 result of a program nor is policy dependant on the program. In fact, checkuser is discouraged for such obvious cases. --DHeyward (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Kirill.Biophys (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I have investigated this in detail, and feel it is likely that Giovanni33 is either socking, or else recruiting proxies who support the same content objectives. Jehochman Talk 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Question. As a result of your investigation, you stated you had too many doubts, and that several other administrators familiar with my style had contacted you, believing these accounts were not my puppets, resulting in your unblocking of them. So, has anything happened since that time to change the level of doubt you had? Can you confirm who are these "several admins" familiar with my writing style, who spoke to you in private, and perhaps they can weigh in again in some manner?Giovanni33 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Follow up question. If there is still doubt, then is the evidence really sufficient for one to draw a definite conclusion? I'm referring to the recent allegations, not the ones from years ago, of course.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Although I do not wish to speak for Jehochman, he was making a decision to indef ban you by himself - which is difficult, even if you have outside input. But I think the Arbitrators will be more willing to look into the evidence as they know they're part of a team. John Smith's (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Correct, I want them to see the same evidence that Jehochman saw from his correspondence with several other admins, which produced his doubt and unblocked all the accounts. Obviously my hope is that the ArbCom will have enough similar doubts not to block me, based on the evidence (exculpatory evidence I'm still working on).Giovanni33 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems a very tendentious wording: we already know he did it in the past (he himself said so) but what is relevant for a sanction now is whether he did it recently, but he denies and you have suggested (in the proposed principle above) that all the evidence we have is "similarity of behaviour" which is not evidence at all.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I can't see this from the evidence provided as of yet. All I see is that a few editors from a densely populated, notably politically unique part of the country share the same view about certain topics, marginal topics for many Americans elsewhere of course, but views which no one familiar which the popular sentiments of everyday people in that region would be terribly shocked to see expressed through similar edits and like-minded reversions. The talk page wording evidence comes from topics where both sides make the same arguments over and over and over anyway, so finding that multiple editors on one side of the debate used similar language isn't surprising either. Progressives plagiarize sometimes; it doesn't mean they are meatpuppets. It's also highly likely California's grade school curriculum needs to stress the importance of correct punctuation, but it's a good day when I get your/you're right myself. -- Kendrick7talk 23:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The evidence is very circumstantial and tends to favour conjectural quantity over cogency. Moreover, it is not made clear from the above proposition that G33 is to be judged principally on his recent conduct, as it relates to sockpuppettrey, particularly since his last arbitration. He has already been penalized for past transgressions.BernardL (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is really beginning to puzzle me. It was argued in Mantanmoreland, in a manner that clearly persuaded ArbCom, that editors editing similar articles together would frequently find themselves using the same phrases, especially if they were making similar arguments. Why is that piece of basic common sense, the only figleaf I could find at the time for ArbCom's MM decision, not being applied here?
- I agree with Kendrick. I don't see enough happening here to come to this conclusion. ArbCom has set the bar high, and ArbCom had best be consistent. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I note also G33 is inviting real-world investigation, which does seem to make meatpuppetry less likely in my book. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not just the phrases. It's not just times of day. It's all of the copious evidence put together that leads to this conclusion. The accounts in question here are ghosts - they have no other editing interest aside from backing G33 up 100% on just his articles. They also sound just like him - not clipped like Ultra, not with rhetorical flourishes like me, not with gross personal attacks like SPTS. Evidence of independence has also been amateurishly faked by these accounts, as I've pointed out. And he's been caught doing this before in almost exactly the same way. Wikipedia's achilles heel is, in fact, the ease with which one can overcome the technical barriers to socking. All it takes it another browser and a second ISP, not even a second computer, and RFCU is then only able to say "same geographic area", at most. So we must collect a mountain of circumstantial evidence, and convict on that. Rule that out, and you may as well put a stake through the heart of this project.
- (And BTW you're again forgetting about the SevenOfDiamonds case, in which ArbCom did convict on such evidence. And the OldWindyBear (talk · contribs) case, in which the community unmade an admin based on such evidence.) - Merzbow (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know much about 7ofD, and all I do know of it was at the time of the !! problem, so its nothing good.
- I do know that this evidence doesn't approach the MM level - no offence, Merzbow, but you're the only one really working on it here, and that had a lot of people - and is open to other problems, such as the fact that G33 is being open about his RW identity, and suggesting meetups of all the sock drawer, in an manner that makes deception less likely. However we consider this, applying different standards between this case and the last one would not go down well.
- Frankly I suggested right at the beginning that if there's evidence of disruption, that should presented instead. A topic ban could probably have been pushed through by now.
- I agree with you about WP's achilles heel. Which is why the original stake was driven by the FoF in the previous case. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- (And BTW you're again forgetting about the SevenOfDiamonds case, in which ArbCom did convict on such evidence. And the OldWindyBear (talk · contribs) case, in which the community unmade an admin based on such evidence.) - Merzbow (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Giovanni33 banned
1) Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
- Comment by parties:
- Agree with the arguments for indefinite/self-renewing ban.Ultramarine (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Should be indefinite, given his block log, but I understand that ArbCom almost never hands out indefinite bans in the absence of a prior active indefinite community ban. - Merzbow (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support if the finding of fact is merely one of edit-warring. If it also includes puppetry then he should be indef banned given he was let off an indef block on the promise he didn't use puppets again. John Smith's (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Kirill.Biophys (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Would be good. Need to get rid of the socks too, though William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regretfully, I concur that an action of this type is necessary; support proposal. Anthøny 21:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. --DHeyward (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would ask you: in this proposed ban what is the weight of your proposed principle stated above "same behaviour=same editor"? What is the weight of the past sockpuppetry?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand your enquiry. Are you questioning whether or not this ban's "intensity" has been set based on circumstances that include Giovanni's past sock puppetry record? Anthøny 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:DHeyward
Proposed principles
SPA, Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets
1) Single-Purpose Accounts that all edit a small set of related articles with substanitally the same edits or supportive comments and actions may be treated as Meatpuppets or Sockpuppets and in the case where those edits are contentious or support edit warring, they can be treated as abusive meatpuppets or sockpuppets.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed.Biophys (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as too vague. Editors who come from the same culture are going to tend to discuss and edit in a similar manner, and this will open the door to endless witchhunts against specialists. -- Kendrick7talk 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- oppose this principle is not supported by any of the 5 pillars and is in direct contravention of WP:AGF TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- oppose as per RedPen and KendrickBernardL (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Giovanni33's SPA Meat and Sock puppets
1) User:BelindaGong, User:Professor33, User:NeoOne, User:Freethinker99, User:CleanSocks, User:FionaS, User:HK30, User:Kecik, User:Mercury2001, User:MikaM, User:NPOV77, User:RTS, User:Rafaelsfingers, User:Supergreenred, and the seemingly endless list of Northern California IP whose only substantial contributions are to support Giovanni33's views in the narrow set of articles he edits, are all abusive SPA Meatpuppets or Sockpuppets.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed.Biophys (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- So we're banning every like-minded liberal in the most liberal part of the country from editing which articles exactly? Anti-Federalist articles? Really? I don't like where this is going, and I can't support purging whole geographies of editors because they happen to share the same views. It would be like responding to an edit war on lobsters by banning everyone from Maine. -- Kendrick7talk 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, we're only talking about those sockpuppets. There are plenty of Northern California contributors. I don't know if they are liberal or not. Nor do I know if Giovanni33 is liberal or not as it didn't come into the equation. I do know that the accounts above, including the IPs, edit the very narrow set of articles that giovanni33 edits and they are abusive. There is an entire planet of editors from all political persuasions. It is unbelievably odd, therefore, that there is an extremely small set of IPs from Northern California that only seem to edit Giovanni33 articles. If your broad political brush were true, we'd expect to see broad geographical support with overlapping article edits. There are certainly liberals from Northern California that edit Wikipedia that aren't Giovanni33 socks and they contribute to numerous articles without so much as a hint of wrongdoing. And then there are these SPA Giovanni33 sock/meatpuppets that are a problem. --DHeyward (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- This has all the marking of a witch hunt. I don't think if the suspects shared the same politics as the mob, there would be any issue. These right wingers hunting witches share the same kind of politics. I strongly urge the admins to look at the edit history of those partaking in this sweep and judge them by their actions, not just their words. Remember this quote:
- First they came for the Jews
- and I did not speak out
- because I was not a Jew.
- Then they came for the Communists
- and I did not speak out
- because I was not a Communist.
- Then they came for the trade unionists
- and I did not speak out
- because I was not a trade unionist.
- Then they came for me
- and there was no one left
- to speak out for me.
- Pastor Martin NiemöllerRafaelsfingers (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right, as First They Came... is my favorite poem, I've taken the liberty of cleaning up your indents. It's the same principle DHeyward -- limiting the editing of articles in Category:Anti-Americanism to one of the world's 7 million San Franciscans would be like limiting the editing of articles in Category:The Holocaust to only one of the world's 7 million Israelis. Maybe not a terrible idea on its face, but we can't go holding special elections in every culture to decide which editor gets to edit the articles which are relevant to it. -- Kendrick7talk 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Pastor Martin NiemöllerRafaelsfingers (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33 is a SPA account
2) User:Giovanni33 is a SPA account for editing articles critical of the United States. The person editing from this account likely uses other accounts to edit other article topics and is a prolific puppet master. He uses SPAs to hide his Sockpuppet editing patterns.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Partial support. Giovanni33 and his sock puppets' interest and editing has varied over time. His earlier sock puppet farm involved articles such as Christianity and Hitler.Ultramarine (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Giovanni33 has made statements alluding to this being a spa account when he was asked to contribute elsewhere in WP. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion removed. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop for the full text, as well as my justification for removing it. Regards, Anthøny 08:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. It is worth noting that what user:Biophys describes as the promotion of "fringe" views regarding the perception of the atomic bombing of Japan as an instance of state terrorism are advanced by numerous leading professors at leading universities. For example: Mark Selden (phd Yale, prof history and sociology Binghamton), Richard Falk (current U.N. Special Rapporteur, prof. International Law, Princeton), C.A.J. Coady (prof Philosophy, Melbourne), Douglas Lackey (phd Yale, City University NY), Igor Primoratz (prof philosophy, Hebrew University Jerusalem), Michael Walzer (prof philosophy Princeton), Walden Bello (prof Sociology, Uni Philippines), Michael Mann (phd Oxford, prof Sociology UCLA),Howard Zinn (prof Polisci Boston), Alvin Y. So (Prof and Head Social Sciences, Hong Kong), AMONG OTHERS! BernardL (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- So, the Allies of World War II were simply a bunch of terrorists, just like Osama bin Laden? No, war =/= terrorism. But we are not going to conduct content disputes here. Right?Biophys (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. Giovanni33 has made statements alluding to this being a spa account when he was asked to contribute elsewhere in WP. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right we are not. It suffices to know that there are numerous sources, per above, that meet the requirement of wp:V and wp:RS and that your statement to the effect that this is a fringe view was not true.BernardL (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Partial. Disagree with the first sentence (Giovanni does have substantial editing experience at articles unrelated to the U.S.), but agree with the latter two sentences. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. First statement is factually incorrect on the face given Giovanni's edit history—whatever else one might say his is clearly not a single purpose account (a large number of his edits have to do with Christianity, Hitler, and Mao). The remainder is completely conjectural. This finding of fact is not supported by any evidence, and it needs to be.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Partial support. Giovanni's interests are focused on a relative few POVs, but he is not SPA simply for the purpose of criticising the US. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Partial support. I agree that all alleged sockpuppets are SPAs, but Giovanni33 has 2,000+ main space edits, even though a significant part of them are reverts.Biophys (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- oppose There is NO definition of SPA other than one designed specifcally to apply to G33 that would be applicable to this edit history And it is hard to believe that anyone making such a charge against G33 is acting in good faith.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- oppose Who made this silly proposition? Giovanni has pretty much the same broad editing concerns as a great many leftists (ie: social/environmental justice) editing wikipedia. Do you really want to purge us all? I wouldn't put it past ya- but good luck with that!BernardL (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why would I want to purge us? Only giovanni33 and his army of sockpuppets. --DHeyward (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is code for everyone who agrees with him, and is from this area, right? That is not just. I have my own opinion and my own right to edit here just like you do.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong again. It's code for everyone who ONLY agrees with him. Out of the literally thousands of leftist articles, these SPA's seem only interested in the ones giovanni33 edits. Unbelievably narrow interests from the same geo area. We're not talking about leftist ideology, which is comprised of a rather diverse group, we're talking about only a handful of topics with hardly any outside edits. --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is code for everyone who agrees with him, and is from this area, right? That is not just. I have my own opinion and my own right to edit here just like you do.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why would I want to purge us? Only giovanni33 and his army of sockpuppets. --DHeyward (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Giovanni33 Topic Banned
1) Giovanni33 and all SPA accounts that have essentially supported his position that resolve to Northern California IPs are topic banned from articles relating to U.S. Foreign Policy or terrorism.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Giovanni33 has used sock puppets for whatever topics he is interested in at a particular time so remedies regarding him should not be topic limited.Ultramarine (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support.Biophys (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think this will work, as it will simply displace Giovanni on to other topics and cause trouble there. His general behaviour needs further action. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, as below, we can't ban all editors who share San Francisco values. -- Kendrick7talk 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. This proposition is positively Connolleyan in its totalitarianism. The indiscriminate, broad brush approach regarding Northern Californian accounts, or for the accouts of any particular region, is grossly unfair. Oppose.BernardL (talk)
- Oppose. What?? Doesn't Wikipedia have most of it's IP's in Northern California? Based on this logic, Wikipedia would have to ban itself from this article! This proposal here is a perfect reflection of the witch hunt mentality!Rafaelsfingers (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Future Giovanni33 Sockpuppets and Meatpuppets
2) Future Giovanni Sock or Meatpuppets that substantially conform to these previous puppets will be blocked indefinitely.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. We can't block all editors with San Francisco values. General opposition to the policies of the Federal government is very widespread in San Fransisco, Berkeley, and nearby areas, as this was the epicenter of a major counter-culture movement mere decades ago (q.v. Counterculture of the 1960s), and anyone who watches the evening news or, dare I say, watches South Park knows there's is still a cultural groupthink amongst this population in this regard. If we're going to ban all Northern Californian liberals, I have to think you'll be coming for us Massachusetts liberals next. -- Kendrick7talk 19:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33's 1RR restriction is extended to indefinite
3) Giovanni33's 1RR restriction is extended to indefinite as his SPA meat/sock puppets were used to violate this previous remedy. He may appeal for a change to this after 1 year.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support not as an alternative to a ban, but as an indefinite restriction that would be tacked onto any ban of a definite time period. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed with Merzbow that an extension of his revert parole should be in addition to any other remedy. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33 is indefinitely banned
4) Giovanni33 is indefinitely banned. He may appeal for a change to this after 1 year.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed as the other enforcements seem tedious. Fighting all his socks is more tedious than the value of his contributions. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support ban for one year per arguments above.Biophys (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Should be indefinite, given his block log, but I understand that ArbCom almost never hands out indefinite bans in the absence of a prior active indefinite community ban. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support depending on the circumstances. If the finding of fact is that Giovanni has abused sock/meatpuppets, it should be indefinite. If he has merely engaged in edit-warring, one year plus extended revert parole.
- Merzbow, Giovanni was originally indef blocked for puppetry. He was unblocked on the strict promise that he wouldn't engage in that again. So in those circumstances and his block log/editing behaviour I think the Committee would consider an indef block if they decided he was using sock/meatpuppets. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Should Giovanni be found to have abused sock puppets to evade his 1R restriction for abusing sock puppets or to have used puppets to be a disruptive editing presence (disruptive as seen by neutral edtior, not those who call every edit G33 makes a disruptive edit), this seems an appropriate action. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed enforcement
Checkuser requests for Giovanni33 socks
1) The threshold for initiating a checkuser for Giovanni33 socks is either a new account or a SPA account that edits in support of Giovanni33's previous positions. For the purpose of the topic ban, "Confirmed" will be an IP that matched previously or that resolves to Northern California
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support.Biophys (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support, but I now note that there is a brand-new editor editing from Honolulu using Supergreenred's dial-up ISP. Has all of the markers of a G33 SPA, and probably is him dialing long-distance, but at some point we need to try something new also. That is why I exhort all editors to pay attention to my two 1RR remedies below. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- A lower threshold for Checkuser requests is fine, but I don't think we can tell the Checkusers how to do their job which is what the second sentence basically does. They are chosen for their judgment and should be permitted to exercise it, rather than being forced to "confirm" as a sock anything which "resolves to Northern California" (geographically speaking, that's also far too vague for me). Simply make it easier to file checkuser requests for apparent socks or SPA's (though even then we should still not use it for fishing, only when there is really cause for concern) and then leave the decision up to the Checkuser as we normally would.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- comment the term 'SPA' is being thrown around a lot and I believe that many people hold many different definitions of the term. Any rulings and findings should articulate a clear definition of what they mean when/if they use the term. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose G33 might simply move on to another central nexis of progressive political belief, such as Chicago or Boston, as shown on this map. Or any number of college towns, such as Austin, Texas. Y'all aren't casting nearly a wide enough net, Northern California is only three times the population of all of Ireland, so we can be certain, with such a small sample, that no two people from there could share the same belief system, so if he stuck around it would be highly suspicious. -- Kendrick7talk 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Merzbow
Proposed principles
Editorial process
1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Stolen from some other ArbCom case. - Merzbow (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- support I like the fact that this wording encourages editors to attempt to find common understanding rather than simply place a stake in the ground and keep tugging the flag back to it. And places the ownership of de-escalating situations on each editor's own behavior.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- supportI've long supported this in practice, in particular on this article, which above all articles, must insist on applying this standard. Those who violate it must be acted on. Most of the problems stems from the fact that it's not being acted on, and that in some cases it's the admins who are the ones violating this principle; sets a terrible example.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
"Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" warring
1) Allegations of state terrorism by the United States has been subject to extreme move- and edit-warring over a long period of time, resulting in the article being under frequent full-protection.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. See the move/prot logs for the page under its two most common names: [5], [6]. - Merzbow (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- support pretty much a given TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1RR per 24h on "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" for all editors
1) The article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States may not be reverted more than once in 24 hours by any single editor (excepting reverts of obvious vandalism).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I endorse this. All editors should not revert more than once within 24-hours. Edit-warring is always bad but this is esp. true for this article that is prone to heated and emotional POV's getting in the way of rational though (exhibited through edit-warring). By a strict 1RR for all editors, we eliminate this problem, and force editors to use the talk page to gain consensus first. Although I add that it's many of the established editors who should know better who have been the main problem. The pattern is that they are not active in the discussion by keep coming back to revert 3 times based on only their own POV, against consensus. So its not a problem of so-called SPA accounts in my view.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Merzbow's proposal.Ultramarine (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. I believe such a restriction is active on Israel/Palestine articles, so there is precedent. This article is the main locus of the dispute, and has again come under heavy reverting by SPAs. If nothing else, this will constrict the ability of SPAs to harm the article, since they are clearly more willing to push 3RR than are established editors. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Modification. Simply changed the title of the remedy to distinguish it from the one below. Did not change the text of the remedy. - Merzbow (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I do not think this resolves anything at all. This article caused too much trouble over the years and wasted too much effort by good wikipedians who edit warred instead of doing something useful. Eight deletion discussions, Arbcomm proceedings including this one... Just rename it Covert military actions of the United States and protect all redirects. This will be good for the project.Biophys (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Endorse in response to comments below. This certainly does not hurt, unless a lot of puppets will appear.Biophys (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- 'endorse William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Probably good for the page. John Smith's (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Endorse. A good idea, not strictly under the purview of this case as originally conceived but dropping in a ruling on this would be useful. Quite frankly I doubt that many editors of the page, from either side, would disagree. No one particularly cares for the edit warring. I think there would also have to be a formal enforcement mechanism and/or remedy for this as well. Presumably violations could be brought to arbitration enforcement where uninvolved admins could block users who violate this rule. Blocks could be logged at the page for this case. Incidentally from what I've seen it is both SPA's and established editors who have edit warred on the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)- Changing to oppose. I support this myself in general, but specifically supported it here because I thought it would be fairly non-controversial and a good thing for the article. Apparently it is somewhat controversial, and the fact is that there has been no discussion of this issue in this case and no evidence or finding of fact which supports this remedy (i.e. we are putting the cart before the horse, but I was fine with that so long as no one had a problem, now they do). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed, since you seem to be opposing on technical grounds that could be easily remedied. Will you change your vote if I add the "edit warring is bad" principle and the very obvious "this article has been subject to non-stop edit-warring" finding? Surely you don't dispute such a finding? - Merzbow (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I definitely don't dispute that finding and still think this would be a good remedy in general. Yes, it would definitely be better supported by a principle and FoF, as well as some basic evidence of edit warring (simply noting the number of protections in the last couple of months would be sufficient). I think I would still oppose on technical grounds though simply because it really is beyond the scope of this case and is apparently controversial with some editors. A number of editors have worked on the article, and not all are commenting here. They might have alternative remedies along the lines of what you are proposing, or might disagree with it as some do below. If everyone basically agreed I would say ignore all rules (i.e. that this is somewhat outside the scope of the case) and implement this remedy. Since some folks object, on principle I feel I have to oppose since we are talking about a fairly severe restriction that has not been fully discussed by all concerned. Actually, it would be probably be a good thing to ask the Arbs on the talk case whether they will really consider these kind of article-related remedies before spending a lot of time on them. They've been pretty quiet, but if they can tell us now that they're planning to limit the case to the sockpuppetry issue that would save some effort. I'll actually ask about that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed, since you seem to be opposing on technical grounds that could be easily remedied. Will you change your vote if I add the "edit warring is bad" principle and the very obvious "this article has been subject to non-stop edit-warring" finding? Surely you don't dispute such a finding? - Merzbow (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Changing to oppose. I support this myself in general, but specifically supported it here because I thought it would be fairly non-controversial and a good thing for the article. Apparently it is somewhat controversial, and the fact is that there has been no discussion of this issue in this case and no evidence or finding of fact which supports this remedy (i.e. we are putting the cart before the horse, but I was fine with that so long as no one had a problem, now they do). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strongly Disagree If you look at the September 11 enforcement it is full of blatant administrative abuse. You have incredibly biased involved admins such as Raul654 blocking users selectively, basically squelching one side in an edit war.
- The editors who have been booted from the page are protesting, but despite all the evidence of administrative abuse, after three weeks, no one has done anything.
- This is EXACTLY what will happen here, the deletionist editors, who are admins more than the inclusionists, will use this as a tool to crush opposing views.
- Admin William M Connolley, for example, has abused his admin powers repeatedly on this page, protecting this page and blocking editors during an edit war. Based on William M Connolley administrative abuse in the past, he and other admins will block editors he is edit warring with.
- This rule will absolutely not be followed fairly on both sides. Inclusionist (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. --DHeyward (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This remedy appears to be beyond the scope of the initial case. Such wide ranging rulings should not be made unless/until all current (and recent past) editors have been formally notified of these procedings and allowed a chance to provide input.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- No within scope of case. It is further an end run around a complete participation by all editors on the article. By deciding article questions without allowing all participants to be aware of the discussions. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reject - insufficient. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. I believe such a restriction is active on Israel/Palestine articles, so there is precedent. This article is the main locus of the dispute, and has again come under heavy reverting by SPAs. If nothing else, this will constrict the ability of SPAs to harm the article, since they are clearly more willing to push 3RR than are established editors. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
1RR per week on "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" for new editors
2) The article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States may not be reverted more than once per week by any individual editor who does not have substantial prior editing history on other Wikipedia articles (excepting reverts of obvious vandalism).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Agree but the article should be given indefinite or long semi-protection. Wikipedia has over 2,000 indefinitely semi-protected mainspace articles.[7] Few of them has attracted so many sock puppets and SPA IPs as this article. The Bogdanov Affair article mentioned below has an indefinite semi-protection.Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. This is in addition to the previous 1RR/24h remedy for all editors, which should not be controversial. Now I imagine this will be a bit more controversial, but this article has come under such sustained attack by SPAs I don't see any alternative to being creative like this. I note that there is in fact precedent for differential treatment of new editors - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair - per this remedy, "All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy are indefinitely banned from editing Bogdanov Affair... Any new user account or anonymous IP which commences editing of the article without substantial editing of other articles shall be presumed to be a participant in the external controversy." I'm not proposing a ban like that, merely an editing restriction severe enough to prevent SPAs from continually causing the article to be locked, but allowing them some activity and of course unlimited activity on talk. - Merzbow (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Not a bad idea, but perhaps unnecessarily bureaucratic. The above 1RR per day restriction for everyone will already cut down on edit warring. If new accounts which seem to be SPA's are showing up to the page, warning them sternly and then pursuing them through Checkuser or other means might be the better way to go. If these accounts are only editing these articles and are pushing the boundaries of a 1RR per day restriction (assuming that is implemented) I think that's enough to take action against them, so long as they have been warned first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- endorse proposed remedy: "warning them sternly" is a joke and utterly ineffective William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps my previous comment was too ambiguous. I only said they should be warned first, before "taking action against them," which is to say blocking them. We cannot assume that every relatively new account that edits that article is automatically a sock and block them without any sort of notice whatsoever. A simple warning to them about their behavior should proceed any sort of block. I don't see any problem with that, and that's all I was saying.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Allow editing only by established users.Biophys (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose there should be no two tier system of rules for new users and established users. This suggestion goes against what wikipedia is, an open system that anyone can edit.
- Who will decide what "substantial prior editing", is? Why, Merboz and his administrative friends!
- Merzbow proposes this because as a deletionist, he knows that the majority of the editors who delete are more established editors, whereas most of the inclusionist have been pushed off or booted from wikipedia. More established editors = POV Merzbow supports (i.e. deletion of article) . Strong oppose.
- I have opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States which will more fully address the problems this page has. I don't think two proposals, at the very buried at the end of a arbitration about another person, addresses this page's problems. Inclusionist (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, not within scope of case. This effectively becomes an abuse of the system, by not informing or allowing a complete discussion on the article by all participants of the article. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reject - no basis. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:I Write Stuff
FYI: I Write Stuff (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. - Merzbow (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed principles
Merzbow & Supergreenred
1) Supergreenred is more likely a sockpuppet of Merzbow, then of Giovanni33, sharing linguistic traits, and never having a single shared edit time, as demonstrated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_I_Write_Stuff.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. This isn't a principle, it's a proposed finding of fact which you repeat below.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Agree with BigT. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. Not a principle or a fact. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Misdirection
2) Sockpuppet checks initiated by editors in a region, against other editors in the same region, can be easily manipulated.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not supported. Vague, and I don't see how a check can be manipulated more if it is requested by someone from "a region" whatever that may be. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since Merzbow has access to the same ISP's and has demonstrated his knowledge of computer networking, specifically to circumvent RFCU. Since Merzbow at any time can get a dialup account and pretend to be a sockpuppet of Giovanni, since the RFCU would point to Giovanni's region, which happens to be Merzbow's region as well. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not supported in any basis of fact. Sockpuppets are determined by people. The people use tools and their brains. Location is only a piece of evidence. --DHeyward (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
Supergreenred & Merzbow 2
1) Supergreenred is most likely a sockpuppet of Merzbow as demonstrated by the evidence presented by myself and Giovanni33.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Giovanni33's linguistic evidence, based on one edit by Supergreenred after the RfA started, is quite obviously faked as per Merzbow's reply on the evidence page. Such very glaring linguistic similarities between Supergreenred and Merzbow should have been present also before the RfA started if not faked. But from then there are none. Is instead yet more evidence of why Giovanni33 should not edit Wikipedia.Ultramarine (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Opposed. I don't think the evidence bears that out. When Giovanni presented his "evidence" against Merzbow, he specifically said "I am not making any accusations based on such a specious methodology." Rather he was trying to demonstrate that that kind of evidence was not useful. Your editing pattern analysis is not nearly enough to conclude that Supergreenred is Merzbow, and personally I think that conclusion is highly implausible on its face.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- And I have presented further evidence. The fact that Merzbow claims Giovanni33 has a shared edit time, made to specifically cheat the system, is less "proof" then the new evidence that shows Supergreenred has never edited at the same time as Merzbow. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not supported. The evidence presented so far is far from being conclusive. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it's not conclusive, just as the evidence presented against me is not conclusive.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- The evidence against you is far more conclusive. John Smith's (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah so you are saying it's not conclusive. That was my point.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- The evidence against you is far more conclusive. John Smith's (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quite amusing. I never said the editing timelines were enough to prove sockpuppetry, I simply said they support the charge. What would disprove the charge would be large overlaps of several hours per day, almost every day, which is what sees when one compares Ultramarine and G33. - Merzbow (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- You already have been show to use the same terms as Supergreenred, and have never shared a single editing session, and you edit a lot. It is more convincing then the evidence you presented against Giovanni that he is Supergreenred, which consisted of using "its" instead of "it's" --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- IWS, at this time I must point out that you yourself are very likely to be a sockpuppet of indef-banned SevenOfDiamonds (see here) and are on very shaky ground with your borderline disruptive/pointy contributions to this ArbCom case. That is all. - Merzbow (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen your accusation, and would welcome any inquiry you may wish to file. Now it seems you have failed to argue on reason, and instead decide to engage in ad hominem attacks. Not surprising I guess. If you find your evidence to be "suitable" then I am sure the same evidence presented in return is as well. You have access to the sockpuppet's ISP, you share linguistic similarities and you never edit when they do. Just to add, you made up "evidence" in that thread that was not true, the Times1 Times2 thing, unless you are looking at the "refname" according to the link created, in which case it seems Wikipedia has duped you. A single source, reused, through "ref name" always appears as "refname#" with the number incrementally rising as the tag is used more often. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Have you ran a checkuser? Inclusionist (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- IWS, at this time I must point out that you yourself are very likely to be a sockpuppet of indef-banned SevenOfDiamonds (see here) and are on very shaky ground with your borderline disruptive/pointy contributions to this ArbCom case. That is all. - Merzbow (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- You already have been show to use the same terms as Supergreenred, and have never shared a single editing session, and you edit a lot. It is more convincing then the evidence you presented against Giovanni that he is Supergreenred, which consisted of using "its" instead of "it's" --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Gaming the system
2) Editors in disputes have frequently attempted to frame, or mislead administrators in sockpuppet checks: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive414#User:ScienceApologist_blocked_indefinitely
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Well, it does happen. But it's a bit like saying "people use sockpuppets" - I don't think that really helps this case. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Except that Merzbow is in the same geographic region as Giovanni33, making it easier to fake such evidence. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- It does raise a legitimate points that should raise reasonable doubt about other possible explanations for some of the mimicry. A lot of itis cherry picking and confirmation bias, but some of it could be outright impersonation, as well. If someone wanted to frame me, it would not be hard given I'm vulnerable to the charge per previous conduct.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposal by User:Raymond arritt
Proposed remedies
1) The article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States will be reduced to a stub and carefully rewritten following policy and consensus. In the rewriting of the article, a restriction of one revert per week shall apply to each editor. Administrators will be given broad discretion to apply remedies for tendentious editing, disruptive editing, attempts to give undue weight, improper sourcing, or other problems that may arise in the course of rewriting the article.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- This proposal is well beyond the scope of the initial arbitration and has the possibility of impacting editors who have not been properly notified to allow their participation.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- How do you suppose we can rewrite this article, according to policy, when the ones who oppose its existence do so for personal reasons? Do you consider consensus, the shear numbers, or is consensus only those discussing the issues on policy. The issue with edit warring, if you read over the talk page, is not grounded in policy, it is grounded in personal opinion. For instance, JzG has reverted, removing the Japan section, based on his personal opinion that the WP:RS and WP:V sources, stating the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were state terrorism, should be instead stating it was war terrorism. If consensus forms agreeing with JzG, do we then state the sources say it was war terrorism? I think the bigger issues of this article and policy need to be discussed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wholehearted support - It is about time we bring back some common sense and normalcy to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - A more drastic alternative to my proposals, but one I have no problem with. - Merzbow (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. You are asking the arbitrators to make a (rather unilateral) content decision which they generally do not do. Also, as TheRedPenOfDoom points out, this issue has not even been discussed in this case (no evidence presented, involved parties not contacted) so presenting a sweeping content remedy on an article is wholly inappropriate. As far as I know Raymond and Jossi have not been particularly involved in this article, so I don't know how they can be so sure about the appropriate course of action (discussion is actually proceeding in a fairly reasonable manner on the article talk page, and I see no rationale for stubbing it - you have not even explained why it should be stubbed nor presented evidence that this is a needed course of action - since there are no real BLP problems or anything like that). The arbs already had a chance to take on this article in the WM Connolley proposed case, and now another case about the article is before the committee. This case is about one editor's possible sockpuppetry. Simple because he has worked on this article does not mean one can smuggle in a remedy which basically has the effect of blanking an article that a lot of people don't like, but which recently easily survived an AfD. I'm confident the arbs will pass on this, and if they want to address the article head on they can accept the case which was recently filed so all of the relevant parties have a chance to offer evidence, thoughts, etc.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- endorse: excellent idea, and also a good general principle. But Raymond... when did you become an arbitrator? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. I'm glad we have capable people willing to serve as arbitrators, and I'm glad I'm not one of them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the case editors have made contributions which aren't questioned, why should they be removed just because the rest of the editors/admins on the page, particularly those still there, have failed to comply with basic policy? Reject. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose this is simply an attempt to cripple the content of the article because AfD's have failed in the past. It's also beyond the scope of this case. -- Kendrick7talk 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose This is really the heart of the whole issue, and why a right-wing clique of editors who think wikipedia is a political battle field want to get me, along with every other left-winger in the Northern California area, banned: political content of this article. That is why we see this article up for Afd every few months by the same hard core conservatives. Failure to accomplish that they then attack the article in a way that is very much like a kind of vandalism, by blanking whole sections over and over, starting edit-wars in the hopes to get the article locked in a vandalized state. Failure to accomplish that they want to stub the article. These are all Afd attempts by other means. It's obvious that the content of the article's claims by notable experts in their field, i.e. the that U.S. has engaged in State Terrorism, is an idea that is so offensive to some that they can't deal with it in a rational manner Wikipedia norms notwithstanding. Yes, I'm being blunt here but its a truth that has to be said. It's the extra-large pink elephant in the room.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - 1) giving broad discretion to few admins amounts to let a tiny minority decide on content issues and sanction people accordingly. Unacceptable and contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. 2) It seems pretextuous since this RfA is just about a specific user (in a large group of editor of the article) and not about the article.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - A content dispute shouldn't be dragged into this user-related arbitration. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States is the correct place for such discussion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Another possible solution would be to delete this article.Biophys (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not at all sure what basis you think an arb hearing about sockpuppetry could come up with a remedy to delete an article that has kept through six or seven AfD's. I believe your POV is clearly showing. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The existence of this article was a so significant disruption that it is not a content issue any more. This became a behavior problem, and I suggest to eliminate the source. This is simply a practical matter; the content of this article is irrelevant.Biophys (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Some people get hangnails - to prevent hangnails we should cut off everybody's hand. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The existence of this article was a so significant disruption that it is not a content issue any more. This became a behavior problem, and I suggest to eliminate the source. This is simply a practical matter; the content of this article is irrelevant.Biophys (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not at all sure what basis you think an arb hearing about sockpuppetry could come up with a remedy to delete an article that has kept through six or seven AfD's. I believe your POV is clearly showing. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Bigtimepiece, Ryan Paddy and Redpenofdoom. BernardL (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Absolute support, this is the best way of resolving the issue. Stub, protect, nothing goes back in without robust sourcing and solid consensus. This is how it should be anyway, per WP:ONUS, but the burden of evidence has been reversed by the self-described inclusionists (i.e. include any factoid however fringe it is) on that article. It won't fly, as a content resolution, but it's what we shoudl do as an admin community once G33 has been banninated as he should be. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I like Guy's pro-deletionist essay less and less each time I read it. My fellow inclusionists and I could surely write WP:NOONUS before the day is out, although it's largely covered by WP:YESPOV, which has the force of policy behind it. -- Kendrick7talk 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm pretty certain I suggested this on the article talkpage or something months ago, and so I agree - more, I wish that this would apply to a bunch of other tendentious and OR-y articles, of which I'm building up a small list in my head. I think, however, that those who have strong opinions on the subject, or on the motives of participants, shouldn't be the ones editing through protection or judging consensus. To take the example extensively discussed: I don't see any major RSes saying that the '45 bombs should be considered state terrorism; I do, however, see a very major source describing how they're not quite state terrorism, but a different, if related form of terrorism. How will consensus achieve inclusion or exclusion of this? Who will judge consensus here? --Relata refero (disp.) 19:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Relato's conjecture about a lack of major reliable sources for the 45 bombings is pure nonsense. Mark Selden and Richard Falk are certainly high-falutin enough sources. And Igor Primoratz, Douglas Lackey and C.A.J. Coady are all often playing on the same basketball court (moral philosophy concerning just war) as Michael Walzer, and often winning. See the anthology "Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues." Within the field of terrorology, Michael Stohl is a major reliable source. Here is a partial list of major reliable sources: Mark Selden (phd Yale, prof of history/sociology Binghamton) Michael Mann (phd Oxford, prof of Sociology UCLA) Walden Bello (prof Sociology Uni of Philippines) C.A.J. Coady (prof philosophy Melbourne) Igor Primoratz (prof philosophy Hebrew Uni , Jerusalem) Alvin Y. So (director and prof Social Sciences, Hong Kong Uni) Howard Zinn (prof polisci Boston), Richard Falk (prof International Law Princeton, current U.N. Special Rapporteur) Douglas Lackey (phd Yale, prof philosophy, City University NY) BernardL (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- My support for material within articles has never been predicated upon gut feeling or my own POV. So that charge is false. I have always insisted that WP uphold and reflect a consistently high-standard of scholarship, in particular for controversial/charged article content that is disputed. I value WP:RS and WP:V as essential criteria for making such determinations. Hence, my advocacy for material stems directly from knowledge of the literature within the field, and additions of controversial material has always been based on this, i.e. well-sourced. I feel WP should never be censored, which is what I feel has been happening here when despite significant scholarship advancing a thesis is provided, editors still insist to blank the material because they don't personally agree with the academics. WP should be a mirror reflecting the scholarship within academia, weighted properly, of course--not us editors. As a side-note, user Relata refero does not fall into the censorship camp, but has been a good editor for WP.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. The worst article in Wikipedia needs a rewrite and this would be a good start. --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I still challenge any of the folks supporting this proposal to answer some of the questions I've asked about it on the Workshop talk page. Also, to call this the worst article on Wikipedia is absurdly hyperbolic. Obviously you personally dislike the article intensely and actually want it deleted (not rewritten), but objectively speaking this is not even close to being the worst article on Wikipedia (unless you've read at least a million articles, it's kinda hard to say what the worst is). If you have such a problem with it, perhaps you should complain about the fact that it's rated B-class by two WikiProjects and has been for awhile.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- First, I'll accept for the sake of argument that it's not the worst article in relative terms. But it's very, very bad in absolute terms if we place any value at all on WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOR, and all those other policies we claim to value. Second, I most emphatically do not want the article to be deleted. I think it's an important subject and that Wikipedia should have a neutral, well-written and well-sourced article on the topic. Finally, at bottom this is more a conduct issue than a content issue. Conduct of some involved editors has created a toxic miasma around the article that is an effective repellant to outside editors. Unfortunately some people seem to like it that way, and I'm proposing arbcom action to resolve the impasse. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can you give any examples of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc (perhaps on this or the article's talk page)? The problem is that editors who do want to delete the article, and then later blank sections of it, always make these claims, yet never have been able to substantiate any of them. If there is any OR or failures of V, I will be the first to want to correct that. So far no one has been able to show this, and when engaged in an argument about it, it turns out that they fall back on other non-valid arguments, i.e. "wikipedia does not have to cover all knowledge!" or "but they are wrong, it's not state terrorism, its war!" or some other flawed conception of policy that have been refuted many times.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Giovanni is correct that it is far more common for editors to cry WP:NOR and the like without giving specific examples. I'm glad you, Raymond, would like us to have an article on the subject, and my comment about not wanting one was only directed to DHeyward, who clearly wants the article deleted. My specific problem with this proposal is laid out on the Workshop talk page, namely that it is utterly outside the scope of the case and based on no evidence whatsoever. That does matter, obviously. Before making a drastic content decision (and it is a content decision, that's clear) some form of evidence and discussion is pretty necessary. I fully agree that the article has a "toxic miasma" surrounding it and has for a long time (it's still off my watchlist, though I've been commenting there recently). However anyone who suggests that that toxicity comes solely from the "Giovanni side" of the debate is sorely mistaken. In the 10-11 months I've been aware of the article, plenty of editors from both sides have contributed to making that thing a mess and that continues even now (cf. JzG's recent work on the article and in particular its talk page). Anyone who tries to blame only one side or the other is, in my view, simply unaware of the full picture or possibly too caught up in their own point of view, which happens to the best of us (and I think this is the case for folks on both sides of the dispute).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can you give any examples of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc (perhaps on this or the article's talk page)? The problem is that editors who do want to delete the article, and then later blank sections of it, always make these claims, yet never have been able to substantiate any of them. If there is any OR or failures of V, I will be the first to want to correct that. So far no one has been able to show this, and when engaged in an argument about it, it turns out that they fall back on other non-valid arguments, i.e. "wikipedia does not have to cover all knowledge!" or "but they are wrong, it's not state terrorism, its war!" or some other flawed conception of policy that have been refuted many times.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. The worst article in Wikipedia needs a rewrite and this would be a good start. --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by Giovanni33
Proposed principles
Assumption of Good Faith
1) To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: a suspect is not enough to make a sanction (a principle which we can find only within dictatorships).
As a practical application to this case, consider the fact that unless its followed, one can be ban on the basis that another editors copying of your agenda. Mimicry can be established and assumed, yes, but imputation of nefarious motives in violation of WP policy can not without great weight compelling such a finding.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- With all due respect, you have indicated in the past that you reserve the right to not assume good faith yourself. More specifically I am concerned that you are trying to use this as a shield to deflect criticism of your editing. You have been shown a lot of good faith, repeatedly - that cannot go on forever. John Smith's (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is not about me, it's about Wikipedia's core value. Don't give me any assumption of good faith, but do give it to the other accounts falsely accused to be me based on some rather specious methods and circumstantial evidence forged together with bad faith assumptions.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Assumption of good faith extends to what a person may be trying to achieve through their editing, but if they are displaying puppet behaviour then that cannot act as a shield against investigation. If we had been talking about one or two "suspicious" edits, I doubt anyone would have noticed - and if they had, they would have not been concerned about it. But the accounts in question have been doing much more than that. So whilst assuming good faith is very important, it can't override concerns based on evidence such as we have seen. John Smith's (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is not about me, it's about Wikipedia's core value. Don't give me any assumption of good faith, but do give it to the other accounts falsely accused to be me based on some rather specious methods and circumstantial evidence forged together with bad faith assumptions.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, you have indicated in the past that you reserve the right to not assume good faith yourself. More specifically I am concerned that you are trying to use this as a shield to deflect criticism of your editing. You have been shown a lot of good faith, repeatedly - that cannot go on forever. John Smith's (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Newcomers are always to be welcomed.
2) There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals, should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- That's rather vague. Can you be more specific, please? John Smith's (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- This principle is listed to counter the proposed remedy above that proposes to restrict editing to only "established accounts." It also ties in with AGF.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's rather vague. Can you be more specific, please? John Smith's (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"SPA accounts" are not necessarily bad.
3) If an editor evidences significant knowledge about a particular narrow topical range, they may be experts. Wikipedia must be accepting and welcoming of such experts.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- support the widespread perjorative use of SPA bothers me and seems counter toWP:AGFTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Editors with topical expertize are of extreme value to the project, though it's important for them to be able to work well with others. I noticed this edit[14] by Giovanni33 and it suggested to me that this editor possesses both in relevance to the contentious State Terrorism in the U.S. article. It's worth nothing that the response to this attempt at dialogue demonstrated neither.[15] -- Kendrick7talk 00:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
New alleged puppetry by Giovanni33's has not been confrimed
1) There is no confirmation of recent puppetry by Giovanni33. All evidence presented thus far is inconclusive at best.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Not agreed. Evidence looks pretty substantial. John Smith's (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The statement of fact does not mention substantial. It only asserts the fact that it has not been confirmed, i.e. that it's inconclusive. This is an established, incontrovertible fact.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- You use the word "inconclusive". I do not agree that the evidence is "inconclusive at best", which is why I said it was pretty substantial. John Smith's (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The statement of fact does not mention substantial. It only asserts the fact that it has not been confirmed, i.e. that it's inconclusive. This is an established, incontrovertible fact.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I want to point out two things, first, doing a google search and using site:*.Wikipedia.org, will not net you all the results on Wikipedia. To gauge a common typo, you would want to search on talk pages only, as article content would be vetted for typos. Secondly, it seems that the typos presented are extremely common. I find two things worrisome, that Merzbow has found all of the evidence, being most of it is compiled of common typos, and that he himself barely ever spells those words incorrectly. Lastly, the fact that Merzbow and Giovanni33 live in the same area, make the sockpuppets repeated insertions into the debate, more suspect, almost convenient that its continued posting only buries Giovanni33 deeper. I think what we are left with, is that Bay Area people who use "its" incorrectly, of which I have to admit, I think I have never used "it's" when posting online in any manner, are all Giovani33. These sweeping attempts to remove a whole state from an article seem quite absurd. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not agreed. Evidence looks pretty substantial. John Smith's (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The San Francisco Bay Area is a hot-bed of leftist activism
It's well known that this area of Northern California concentrates political progressives and so it would not be surprising to find a larger number of editors in this area who share Giovanni33's POV. Hence, IP's in this area whose contributions support Giovanni33's views can not be automatically assumed to be abusive SPA Meatpuppets or Socket-puppets.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Most of the evidence presented document extensive linguistic and behavorial similarities apart from that showing editing from the same geographic area and edit warring to exactly the same verions. Arguing that sock puppetry cannot be shown if different ISPs/IPs are used would make following Wikipedia policy and Arbitration Committee rulings voluntary and optional. Anyone could ignore whatever policy or rulings disliked simply by using a dynamic ISP.Ultramarine (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- It is not surprising that people in the area might share your views, but I do not agree that it is necessarily a "hot-bed of leftism". In any case, one key issue is why various people would suddenly launch themselves into the topics you are in dispute over with little editing previously - or indeed display classic sleeper behaviour. John Smith's (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't find that the evidence supports this conclusion.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- To quote another editor, above, "We can't block all editors with San Francisco values. General opposition to the policies of the Federal government is very widespread in San Fransisco, Berkeley, and nearby areas, as this was the epicenter of a major counter-culture movement mere decades ago (q.v. Counterculture of the 1960s),... knows there's is still a cultural groupthink amongst this population in this regard. If we're going to ban all Northern Californian liberals, I have to think you'll be coming for us Massachusetts liberals next."Giovanni33 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is not surprising that people in the area might share your views, but I do not agree that it is necessarily a "hot-bed of leftism". In any case, one key issue is why various people would suddenly launch themselves into the topics you are in dispute over with little editing previously - or indeed display classic sleeper behaviour. John Smith's (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely true. This is much like an earlier case where everyone in the Five Boroughs who edited our article on the September 11th attacks were accused of being the same person, which I believe ArbCom eventually realized didn't make a lot of sense. ArbCom needs to take a politically neutral stance here and not start wiping blue states off the map at the behest of some number of politically conservative administrators. -- Kendrick7talk 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree. This is in fact what is being attempted at this article: a systematic blocking of all progressive-minded editors from just just the SF Bay Area, but all of Northern California. This smacks of political repression, and censorship of uncomfortable truths.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kendrick, I think that you may be missing the point. No one is suggesting people be blocked for their views. The issue is "people" in the same area as Giovanni displaying sleeper behaviour, being focused almost exclusively on articles he has disputes with, etc. The Allegations article is not the same as the 11th September page. The latter is a very emotional topic that lots of people are interested in and most are aware of. On the other hand the former is very much a niche topic. John Smith's (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you happen to be interested in state terrorism by the U.S. you can get there from google in about 2 mouse clicks. But, it's not the article popularity that I find similar, it's the way evidence in that prior ArbCom -- at least as I remember it in my mind's eye -- was sorted through regarding common typos proving sockpuppetry and elaborate schemes involving bus schedules and madcap cross-city taxi rides were contrived, with dead seriousness, to explain that multiple editors were actually the same person, because it would be some remarkable stretch of the imagination that multiple New Yorkers could somehow share the same view about 9/11. It was silly then, and it's just as silly now. -- Kendrick7talk 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, but how many people are interested in state terrorism by the US? My point was that the 9/11 attacks are something that just about everyone has a view on - even non-Americans. A majority of people in the US, on the other hand, probably don't even know what state terrorism is, let alone have such an interest in it that they pretty much only edit on a single article dealing with the US and the concept on Wikipedia. That really is quite a particular, niche interest. Also I don't see anyone talking about bus schedules and taxi rides here. So I think that your comparison is somewhat inappropriate - though I'm sure you disagree. John Smith's (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I lived in the Haight for two months roughly a decade ago, so I know whereof I speak. Look at Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Center controversy if you think someone imagining that the U.S. military is a terrorist organization would be a considered lone nut. -- Kendrick7talk 18:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kendrick, you now seem to be ignoring what you originally wrote. You first complained that this was all too similar to a dispute over a 9/11 page, and I pointed out the significant difference between the interest in and awareness of 9/11 and state terrorism allegedly caused by the United States. I then highlighted the fact that even fewer people would take the interest in the latter so far that they would only be devoting so much of their time to pages that Giovanni was having trouble on. Then there's the issue of classic puppet behaviour. It isn't just that the accounts share similar views - that's just one factor. No one has said "ban everyone that agrees with Giovanni". But when you've got accounts popping up with few or no previous edits and leaping in to help him out, coming from the same area, not showing an interest in other pages, etc that really is a bad sign. John Smith's (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it looks suspicious, but when the articles concern topics of local interest, such geographical coincidences are not unheard of. -- Kendrick7talk 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well thanks for moderating your view a bit. No one is saying it is impossible for people from an area to be interested in the same article, merely that it is not credible when other factors are put into play. Jehochman actually unblocked Giovanni because he wasn't sure of his own sockpuppet conclusions, but he's still come here to give a pretty negative opinion on Giovanni's credibility. John Smith's (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it looks suspicious, but when the articles concern topics of local interest, such geographical coincidences are not unheard of. -- Kendrick7talk 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kendrick, you now seem to be ignoring what you originally wrote. You first complained that this was all too similar to a dispute over a 9/11 page, and I pointed out the significant difference between the interest in and awareness of 9/11 and state terrorism allegedly caused by the United States. I then highlighted the fact that even fewer people would take the interest in the latter so far that they would only be devoting so much of their time to pages that Giovanni was having trouble on. Then there's the issue of classic puppet behaviour. It isn't just that the accounts share similar views - that's just one factor. No one has said "ban everyone that agrees with Giovanni". But when you've got accounts popping up with few or no previous edits and leaping in to help him out, coming from the same area, not showing an interest in other pages, etc that really is a bad sign. John Smith's (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I lived in the Haight for two months roughly a decade ago, so I know whereof I speak. Look at Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Center controversy if you think someone imagining that the U.S. military is a terrorist organization would be a considered lone nut. -- Kendrick7talk 18:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying, but how many people are interested in state terrorism by the US? My point was that the 9/11 attacks are something that just about everyone has a view on - even non-Americans. A majority of people in the US, on the other hand, probably don't even know what state terrorism is, let alone have such an interest in it that they pretty much only edit on a single article dealing with the US and the concept on Wikipedia. That really is quite a particular, niche interest. Also I don't see anyone talking about bus schedules and taxi rides here. So I think that your comparison is somewhat inappropriate - though I'm sure you disagree. John Smith's (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you happen to be interested in state terrorism by the U.S. you can get there from google in about 2 mouse clicks. But, it's not the article popularity that I find similar, it's the way evidence in that prior ArbCom -- at least as I remember it in my mind's eye -- was sorted through regarding common typos proving sockpuppetry and elaborate schemes involving bus schedules and madcap cross-city taxi rides were contrived, with dead seriousness, to explain that multiple editors were actually the same person, because it would be some remarkable stretch of the imagination that multiple New Yorkers could somehow share the same view about 9/11. It was silly then, and it's just as silly now. -- Kendrick7talk 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Basically support. Probably should be worded a bit differently, but this is an important point if we want to make sure we don't go witch-hunting for Northern Cali IP's (or new accounts) that want to edit this article and yet agree with Giovanni's view. And to the extent that is is possible for any community in the United States to be a "hot-bed of leftist activism," the Bay Area is exactly that. Most anyone who has spent time there, regardless of their political views, would agree with that point to at least some degree. They don't call it the Republic of Berkeley for nothing!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually its called "The People's Republic of Berkley." We are proud of the designation.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- My bad, I forgot the "People's" part of it. By the way I love Berkeley (been there a few times), and certainly wasn't trying to knock the nickname or anything (after all I live in the People's Republic of Brooklyn). :) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- And here I thought the Republic of Cambridge was one of a kind. -- Kendrick7talk 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually its called "The People's Republic of Berkley." We are proud of the designation.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support I had already implied the same TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Northern California has not cornered the market on leftism. There are plenty of editors with anti-government views spread throughout the country. It is highly unlikely that these SPA's independently arrived at all the same articles as Giovanni33, that they don't edit much else, and that Giovanni33 has not been joined by editors from other locations. Also, I think it is revolting to assume that administrators seeking to put an end to this disruption must be right wingers. That's just not true. Jehochman Talk 13:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- True or not true it is irrelevant and misleading. It could actually be - say - the brother of Giovanni, we just don't know and unless we have clear proofs of Giovanni's involvement we cannot assume anything to support any sanction.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, we can. Editors who are indistinguishable from one another can be treated as a single editor for the purposes of policy. This is documented at WP:MEAT. Also note that Pokipsy76 has been topic banned for disruption of 9/11 articles. See WP:ARB9/11#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:MEAT do not say anything of what you are claiming. Also note that my topic ban was a "discretionary" action.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- "3. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." Jehochman Talk 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes and this doesn't mean that you can assume that the meatpuppet is actually a sockpuppet, it just means that the same sanctions are given to all the users sharing the same behaviour (assuming the behaviour deserve a sanction).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- With respect to meatpuppets that's quite true Jehochman, but my support for the basic idea here has as much to do with the future as with the current case. There is a strong sentiment expressed by some on this page that basically any IP or registered account which does not have a very well established editing history, which shows up at the US state terrorism page, which has a Northern Cali IP address, and which makes arguments that agree or disagree with Giovanni can be assumed to be a sock or a meatpuppet. I think that pushes things too far. Obviously there are progressives all over the country, there just happens to be an extremely high concentration in the Bay Area. If Giovanni lived in a small town in West Virginia the situation might be a little different. I'm extremely wary of a situation where a fairly new account has made, say, 40 total edits, then shows up at the US state terrorism page, is supportive of the article, is Checkusered and found to live in the Bay Area (one of the proposals involves lowering the standard for a Checkuser case), and then is summarily blocked for being a sock or meatpuppet. There are some here who, in my view at least, are arguing for far too low of a bar as to whom we will apply those appellations. Believe it or not this article actually does attract a lot of attention (most people who have supported its existence over the years are not sockpuppets), particularly during it biannual AfD. I don't want to be on the verge of banning any new editors from the article who agree with one side, but some are proposing exactly that. I would have worded this proposal a bit differently as I said, but I certainly support the basic thrust of it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes and this doesn't mean that you can assume that the meatpuppet is actually a sockpuppet, it just means that the same sanctions are given to all the users sharing the same behaviour (assuming the behaviour deserve a sanction).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- "3. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." Jehochman Talk 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:MEAT do not say anything of what you are claiming. Also note that my topic ban was a "discretionary" action.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, we can. Editors who are indistinguishable from one another can be treated as a single editor for the purposes of policy. This is documented at WP:MEAT. Also note that Pokipsy76 has been topic banned for disruption of 9/11 articles. See WP:ARB9/11#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely true. This is much like an earlier case where everyone in the Five Boroughs who edited our article on the September 11th attacks were accused of being the same person, which I believe ArbCom eventually realized didn't make a lot of sense. ArbCom needs to take a politically neutral stance here and not start wiping blue states off the map at the behest of some number of politically conservative administrators. -- Kendrick7talk 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33 is an established editor and NOT an SPA account
2) User:Giovanni33 not an SPA account for editing articles critical of United States foreign policy, or any other narrow range.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- no definition of SPA would be applicable to G33's edit history. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: