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[edit]

Improper exclusion of involved parties[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sure youve edited this arbcom proceeding before and knew exactly where it was. --DHeyward (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Motion for User Check Requested[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree per User:BernardL. Bwrs (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to allow time for evidence prior to decision[edit]

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)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would recommend that parties who are working on evidence that, for whatever reason, may take a long time to prepare, email the Committee so that we know what's going on and can make any appropriate arrangements. --bainer (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

To answer John's question below, yes, I am in the middle of preparing more evidence in coordination with the other accused accounts (or at least two of them). This has taken a little longer than I anticipated as they have been apparently traveling frequently. However, I intent a video conference, and a wiki-meet, at the Wikipedia foundation headquarters, here in San Francisco. I have also asked my lawyer, who I've been consulted with recently about this case to assist me in preparing written declarations under oath, i.e. under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California. I will obtain declarations under Oath from the other editors as well that will assert the identify of the editor, their respective accounts, and their complete independence from me in all respects. I will also create declarations under oath from witnesses testifying as to my whereabouts when the other accounts have edited. I can present these papers to Mike Godwin or another trusted official at Wikipedia headquarters for examination, as well as to allow an interview of myself and these other editors who seem to be open to this. I want to also submit a paper to the foundation explaining the grave and urgent nature of this case which has ramifications far beyond simply banning me, and I wish to exhaust all internal processes to have maximum attention brought to the matter, should I fail to convince the committee in this arbcom case. I have great hope that justice will prevail in the end, and I am willing to stick around for the long haul to ensure it does.

I hope these type evidence will weight significantly in my favor (or at least it should, according to the advise I've received). Also, I am aware that Dr.Gabriela has e-mailed the arbcom and asked for guidance, and they have not responded yet. I believe she is waiting to hear a reply from them. I will write as well, with my ideas, and seek guidance, too, and I hope an amicable solution can be found.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#G33.27s_mysteriously_time-shifted_play. Ahem. - Merzbow (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it extremely likely that Merzbow is misreading what actually occured there and there are two far more plausible options. See my reply to Merzbow on his talk page. Merzbow does clearly show though that the play ticket stub cannot be used as evidence that Giovanni is not Rafaelsfingers, which is important. I just think Merzbow is wrong to read any sort of nefarious intent into Giovanni's actions. A simple screw up as I describe at the above link is far more plausible.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying G33 can claim this: "If RF's times had matched with the ticket stub, then I'm exonerated. But I'm still exonerated because nobody will think I'm devious enough to have borrowed a friend's used ticket stub, but sloppy enough to have misread the edit times on RF's account". I'm not buying it. Editors facing a ban have been known to go much farther than borrowing a friend's used ticket stub. Remember, we're talking about a guy sloppy enough to have named a previous sock "Professor33". - Merzbow (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are severely misreading what I said on your talk page. The ticket stub thing shows absolutely nothing at all. There is no way Giovanni can use my interpretation of what happened to exonerate him and I said that quite explicitly. I have no idea whether Giovanni borrowed a ticket stub or actually went to the show. We'll never know and it doesn't matter. The stub imbroglio will not prove that Rafaelsfingers is not a Giovanni sock (which is what Giovanni wanted to do) nor provide further evidence that he is a Giovanni sock (which is what your evidence purports to do). Interested parties can take a look at this thread on Merzbow's talk page. If we're going to have a detailed discussion about this though it should probably be on the talk page of the evidence page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I want to thank Merzbow for noticing the time shifts, which I honestly did not realize. What happened was that I came back from the play that night and saw his edits. I looked at the time and saw they corresponded to the time I was in the play. I'm sorry that you feel the need to assume a nefarious conspiratorial plot. Since its a trivial oversight that would have been easily noticed, it's a bit silly to think that I would have planned it. :) Sometimes the simpler explanation is true. It might not be as interesting, but such is what happened. At least you saved me time scanning my ticket, uploading it to a site, and linking it here because as BTP says, now it's moot.

My plan now is co-ordinate some real-life activities with these other editors that will suffice as solid proof of the same thing, though. I'm thinking a video-conference with all welcome to join in and ask away. They can turn on their cams to their computer and see them typing, showing their IP in real-time, showing them logging-in, etc. I want the proof to be solid and convincing and am hoping to have their cooperation. Merzbow, I know it's basic human psychology to become attached to ones pet theory, but it will be proved to have been in error in this case.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plan what you will; I stand by my opinion that three complete strangers are vanishingly unlikely to be willing to give up their identities to exonerate some dude on a website they've never heard of before last month. If you can pull that off and convince the arbs that they are not in fact three of your friends play-acting, then I will bow down in awe. :) - Merzbow (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it and I am confident the truth will prevail so I look forward to you bowing down in awe. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Durova^Charge! 10:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Durova^Charge! 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(unindent) There is a very strong appearance of Giovanni33 utilizing meat puppets to win intense editing conflicts. No real life event will disprove this possibility. I think it would be best if there was some sort of epiphany whereby Giovanni33 realized that leading a crew of single purpose accounts to wage edit wars is not good for Wikipedia. Instead, we need to address the underlying content dispute and try to work together, rather than struggling for power. Editing restrictions would not be necessary if this came to pass. Jehochman ^Talk 02:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have the objectors read the example I linked above? There was also a very strong appearance of an editor using an abusive sock account to evade a block and harass another editor, but appearances were deceiving. Durova^Charge! 08:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a disruptive sockpuppet evading a ban and harassing another editor, I Write Stuff (talk · contribs), except this doesn't exactly help G33's case since he was an ally... - Merzbow (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Rafaelsfingers is willing to speak to some trusted admin in person; that admin could presumably confirm that s/he is not G33, if satisfied that the person they speak to is the one operating the account. I suggest that nobody "wait" for confirmation that this is a good idea, but go ahead and do it, if possible. We can then, if that is indeed settled, discuss allegations of meatpuppetry. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People can do whatever, but I'm still not sure how any person could prove they were Rafaelsfingers. John Smith's (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni, could we have an estimate for how much more time you're requesting? A week or two shouldn't be a problem for a new case. If you're asking for longer it would be courteous to state how much longer and summarize why. Durova^Charge! 07:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think two weeks should suffice. I have basic agreement obtained with two other editors and it's just a question of logistics, timing, some technical testing, getting some specification guideline from arbcom members. I think I should be able to wrap this up within the next two weeks. Thanks, Durova, for the opportunity.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over two weeks and Giovanni hasn't said anything further on this. If this isn't a time-delaying tactic it would be useful for him to say what he has been doing. John Smith's (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking - you want to make an oath? And how exactly could anyone prove in a court of law that you had been lying? Even putting aside the matter of sockpuppetry, if you are meatpuppeting then the only people who can prove that in real life are the meatpuppets - who would never confess if they had gone to such lengths to help you out in the first place. An oath is only good if people are telling the truth - in which case the oath isn't required because their word is good enough anyway. It's required in court to ensure people can't get away with lying if they're caught - it doesn't mean their evidence is automatically reliable. I think you're wasting everyone's time, regardless of what your intentions are.

As for internal purposes, as far as I understand it this is an internal process. The treatment you are receiving is no different from that any other editor gets. John Smith's (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is no joke, it is a way to refute the evidence against me. Please note that all the evidence against me in the evidence section only makes sense under the theory that I am and these other accounts, i.e. that me and they are one and the same. Hence, the time-line information, and linguistic analysis, alleging this "proof." Also note that both technical theories are logically geared to prove the same as well: Ultra's theory that I'm driving super fast from one city to another (and now apparently flying back and forth to Hawaii!), and Merzbow's theory that I'm using a wireless device, and multiple ISP's, remote desktop, etc. from multiple computers but at the same place.

Indeed, providing such real life evidence good enough to hold up in a court of law, does indeed undermines the entire case against me. It has not been very easy to obtain the willingness to disclose real world information by other editors that will prove they are real, separate, people. If and when I do, the evidence above must be discarded, in favor of my analysis regarding its inherent weakness given the extremely common typos, "its vs it's, lets vs let's, etc. Instead a new theory of meat-puppetry is the only thing that is left, but this can not be assumed given quite different editing and behaviors among us on its face, and is not supported by the evidence. Simply sharing a similar interest in US foreign policy, not just with me but many other editors is perfectly legitimate and reasonable finding for the SF Bay Area. Also the declaration under oath is a significant step that affirms an absence of such alleged proxy editing. When presented with statements of facts, under the penalty of perjury, it is accepted as true unless you can prove otherwise. The risk is taken with those who assert a falsehood in the form of a statement of a fact, and this can go both ways. Since I'm telling the truth and have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear, and nor do these other editors who have the truth on their side. You want to call them liars, then you better be prepared to back that up.

As far as exhausting all internal processes, its too early to talk about appeals and the other methods that are open to ensure that the truth comes out. Since I believe in the good of the project (indeed I've donated money to it), I with to give it the full faith and respect for the process by attempting to resolve this case of mistaken judgment within the organization, as this is the most efficient and less disruptive method. As far as the process being fair, etc. I do have faith that this will happen, despite the recent proposal, and other factors I've seen in this case, indicating the contrary, which does alarm me. Until its over, though, I will assume good faith in the process and in the critical thinking abilities and wisdom of the committee to do the right thing for the project, and proven valuable editors such as myself and others facing false charges.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence against you suggests that the accounts are your sockpuppets or meatpuppets, not just the former. Furthermore presenting a number of people as being behind the accounts cannot prove that they are not meatpuppets, or even that the accounts are not sockpuppets.

When presented with statements of facts, under the penalty of perjury, it is accepted as true unless you can prove otherwise That is not correct. Use of an oath/asserting "facts" through a statement of case, etc makes evidence admissible - it does not make it the truth until proven otherwise. And as I said above, so what if you sign an oath? The allegations against you are such that it is essentially impossible for them to be proven in a court if you were lying because only you and the other parties would know the truth.

As for calling people liars, I have not used that word. I have put forward my own views in evidence provided, adding to what has already been said.

Until its over, though, I will assume good faith in the process and in the critical thinking abilities and wisdom of the committee to do the right thing for the project And then you'll go to the press to kick up a storm? John Smith's (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will do much more than that, and am prepared to do whatever it takes within reason to safe-guard the project from a great injustice to myself and other editors, who could be blacklisted simply for holding a political stance. A witch-hunt of this type of something that should be fought against tooth and nail, moving heaven and earth and never stop until such morally repugnant practices are soundly repudiated. It's a matter of conscience, principle and the future of Wikipedida. But, as I said, it's not time for this, and I do believe the committee will seriously consider the evidence and come to a correct decision in the end, esp. after I move forward with real life evidence that succinctly refutes the allegations against my good name, and in the process those of others (as well as put an end to the practical extension of this case by those who want to use it to get rid of any oppositional editors in the future).

Also, no, the evidence is built up around trying to prove that that accounts are socket-puppets, not meat-puppets, as I explained above. If you can't prove that I or the other editors are lying, then I suggest you do not make any statements of fact alleging this claim in the absence of proof, and in the face of a declaration under oath stating the contrary. No person or organization would do so, as such would be a rather reckless disregard of some elementary practices. Yes, you are right that in this case it is impossible to prove that I have meatpuppets or not, so it is good for you to say that, and leave it at that. The reason it's impossible for you, or anyone to prove such a connection, is simply because one does not exist. And, I will have documents prepared that put great legal weight to these claims I'm making.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are planning to go to the media if you're banned? Well just so that no one can be accused of misrepresenting what you said.

The evidence would spend more time detailing sockpuppetry because that requires more detail to establish - meatpuppetry is still mentioned.

As for making statements of fact, you're forgetting that this is not a court of law - no one has to make any (and I would argue that they're irrelevant to the arbitration case). And no one here is saying that they know you are not telling the truth - they can only express their opinion of it - so they would not be committing perjury even if they did make an oath on it. Only you and your associaties can commit perjury because you know what the truth is.

So as meatpuppetry is impossible to prove (as in 100%) you appear to be suggesting the door be opened to allow anyone to use it to get their way, provided they're not so stupid as to agitate in public for help with disputes. John Smith's (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have already made myself clear on the matter, and I don't know why you want to keep talking about this. It's a worse case, and last case scenario that I don't think will be necessary. As I said, I have faith in the system, in Wikipedia, and the Committee to look at all the evidence and determine the truth, making a good judgment call. I merely want state that I do intend to fight for the truth regardless but I will do so governed by proportionality and necessity. And, I know in the end the truth will prevail (its just a lot better if it happens at this stage). No, this is not a court of law, I know that. But, lets not forget the similarities, and lets not forget that this is an official branch of the Wikipedia foundation making a decision that has consequences in real life. We are talking about real people here, and real claims against them, assertions of facts, which can be proven as false. In light of a legal declaration of oath that I hope to obtain with my lawyer, to claim otherwise would require more than mere suggestion, esp. if it is followed by a detrimental and adverse action against myself and others.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion, perhaps you should read WP:LEGAL and consider refactoring some of your thinly veiled legal threats. Dman727 (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lets not forget that this is an official branch of the Wikipedia foundation making a decision that has consequences in real life I can't think what that would be. You'd lose the right to edit an internet project and that would be it.

to claim otherwise would require more than mere suggestion, esp. if it is followed by a detrimental and adverse action against myself and others As Dman says, drop the implicit legal threats. This is an internet project and everyone gets treated the same way. To start demanding special treatment and that your evidence is worth more than others because you have sworn on it is against the principles of the project and not fair on those who don't have the free time to organise something like this, nor the money to pay for a lawyer for such affairs. John Smith's (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist the meaning of what I'm saying. I specifically said I intent to fully work within the established procedures to find an amicable resolution, and have faith that the committee will be able to find a good solution. I do want to stress that this is not something I take lightly, and I will do whatever it takes to see my name cleared and have the truth of this dispute brought out. I have not made any legal threats, though. In fact, reading the Legal link above, I believe I have expressed exactly the POV that the policy asks us to assume. I quote: "Attempting to resolve disputes using the dispute resolution procedures will often lead to a solution without resorting to the law. If the dispute resolution procedures do not resolve your problem, and you then choose to take legal action, you do so in the knowledge that you took all reasonable steps to resolve the situation amicably."I have full confidence that this dispute resolution will end in an amicable manner, and have full faith in the abilities of the committee to come to reasonable solution based on the evidence. I've even proposed some rather strict restrictions on myself to address any legitimate concerns. It would be unfortunate if I was not cleared of the false charges against me, but I understand mistakes do happen. However, the mistakes, should they occur, would be corrected in time through all appropriate efforts on my end and others. I do intend to work within WP's process and do think that the end result will be a positive one for myself and the project given my rather amicable disposition, esp. considering the false charges.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said I intent to fully work within the established procedures to find an amicable resolution, and have faith that the committee will be able to find a good solution. Then I suggest you clarify as to whether or not you would take legal action if you lose the arbitration case and any subsequent appeal. At the moment you appear to be trying to have it both ways. I should point out that WP:LEGAL does not say "you cannot take legal action", it says that you must not use the threat of legal action to get what you want. John Smith's (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is going around in a circle so I consider this thread over. I've already made my position quite clear on these matters as they stand currently and moving forward. I am not making any threats. I am simply stating my determination with this case as the stakes are higher than they appear to be, and I am open and will pursue all available remedies to correct any injustices without regard to cost or effort. In other words this is very important to me. Arbcom has the full capability to look at the evidence and come to a just and amicable resolution to the problems this case brings forth, and I have full confidence that this will happen. If it doesn't then that is a problem that will have to be fixed, and there are always options to do so.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove User:I Write Stuff comments[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Opposed The evidence is independent of the user who posted it; its stands or falls on its own merits (and who posted the evidence is irrelevant to that fact). All relevant evidence that could affect a decision here should be left in tact regardless.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no idea what the standard is here, but that's what should be followed. If evidence or comments in Arb cases from banned users has been deleted in the past then it should be deleted here, if not then not. I'm guessing though that comments made by I Write Stuff will not be removed, if anything because it will probably make certain threads rather confusing. If that user's stuff stays, a note like the one Merzbow left explaining that the user was banned is completely appropriate. Obviously it's up to the clerk or a committee member to decide this one way or another. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Banned editors may submit evidence via e-mail through the case clerk. No need for an exception here. This person had no standing to be posting anywhere onsite. Durova^Charge! 07:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block giovanni3 for violation of WP:THREAT[edit]

His posts above make clear that any finding that is not favourable to him will result in further action involving his lawyer. That is very intimidating. The only resolution at this point is a banning for WP:THREAT. Participating in this arbcom is now under a cloud of intimidation. --DHeyward (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As WMC says on talk, I think it's just blustering, and we should ignore him, and not give him the pleasure of taking him seriously. - Merzbow (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no legal threat, so yes, you should ignore your impulses to assume bad faith by twisting the clear meaning of what I have said. However, I'll point out this motion does indicate the desperation to which some will go to attempt to silence and deprive their content opponent of even a hearing, and I think that is rather shameful, and indicative of the objective merits of the case being so weak that they wish to cut it short, the complete opposite of what I want to do with it. The fact is that the more time that we have, the more chance of evidence and the truth coming out. That is why when JohnSmith's asked for evidence, I noted that WCM warned him to be careful because he might get what he asks for.[5]8 For these content opponents, getting rid of me seems to be the overriding objective irrespective of what the actual truth may be. That is shameful conduct in my view that goes against our Wiki-ethos.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change "There is no..." to "I've made no..."? . Did something change? --DHeyward (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's called wordsmithing: "The making of changes to a text to improve clarity and style, as opposed to content." But I have no doubt in your unsurpassed ability to find strange and nefarious motives lurking under even the smallest of rocks. heheGiovanni33 (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His other sockpuppet (User:Professor33) made this threat a couple years ago (before his sockpuppet was confirmed)

“

As a professor with contacts in the media I am tempted to bring media attention to the problem, publishing my case. However, I’d like to first exhaust all possible venues within the Wikipedia system, assuming an honest mistake has been made, despite the best worst intentions of some of its members.

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Compliance[edit]

1) All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 12:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not controversial. John Smith's (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Biophys (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Bwrs (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

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 Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 12:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Biophys (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Bwrs (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's who[edit]

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 Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 12:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This principal is fashioned as such based upon a pragmatic necessity given limited abilities to uncover the actual truth. In other words it's a short cut. However, in cases where the truth can actually be discerned, it should always be preferable; a higher the bar corresponding to the ability here of greater investigation, the better as it guards against miscarriages of justice. Truth is better than expediency.

The evidence does not support identical behaviors. The only linking behavior happens to be a similar POV on some related articles and the fact that they are from Northern Calif. But, their behavior as editors is not disruptive and also distinct. Their choice of editing subjects diverges greatly from my own; they all have different editing behaviors. Simply sharing a similar politics, expected from this liberal area, without any actual disruption is much too wide a net, and not the standard enunciated above. The application of such a wide criterion is itself not practically tenable either, as it has the de-facto effect of politically suppressing liberal/left minded editors from a wide geographical area who share an interest in these realted article subjects. Arbcom surely does not want this, as it would hurt the project.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Biophys (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

:::::::::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)[reply]

Agreed. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gabriela was confirmed by RFCU to be within 30 miles G33, RF, and SGR, so we know it's almost certainly not SPTS. - Merzbow (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose until my queries about proper forethought and safeguards are answered straightforwardly and satisfactorily. BernardL (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[quote]“…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.”[quote/]

Comments

This principal is fashioned as such based upon a pragmatic necessity given limited abilities to uncover the actual truth. In other words it's a short cut. However, in cases where the truth can actually be disclosed, the it should always be preferable to higher the bar and prevent miscarriages of justice. Truth is better than expediency.

The evidence does not support identical behaviors. The only linking behavior happens to be a similar POV for article content on some related articles and the fact that they are from Northern Calif. But, their behavior as editors is not disruptive. Also, their choice of editing subjects diverges greatly from my own; they all have different editing behaviors. Simply sharing a similar political point of view, expected from this liberal area – without any actual disruption – is much too wide a net, and not the standard enunciated above. The application of such a wide criterion is itself not practically tenable as it has the de-facto effect of politically suppress liberal/left minded editors from the area who share an interest in these article subject. Arbcom surely does not want this, as it would hurt the project.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -you have to be so careful with this one. I'm married to one of Gio's original "socks" and can state for a fact that just going on behaviour is dangerous - it's a great way to set someone up. People sometimes just pile into a fight when they see one and agree with the underdog. Sophia 17:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With reservations. The user of behavioral evidence to decide sockpuppetry cases is an application of content analysis, a distinct area of academic and professional expertise. I would feel more comfortable if administrators reached definitive conclusions only when there is technical evidence unless the guidelines used by administrators in deciding sockpuppetry cases were written by somebody with specialized training. Otherwise we may misidentify situations such as what Sophia describes, above. Bwrs (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Giovanni33[edit]

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 Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I believe "some other form of proxy editing prohibited by policy" effectively means meatpuppetry. - Merzbow (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kirill.Biophys (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

One might note that I did not participate in the Mantanmoreland case. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

disagree. I'm willing to provide real world evidence that I am not him to a neutral admin who can be agreed upon. Not for for his sake, necessarily. But to clear my name.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Just look at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

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 Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill ^(prof) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree with the arguments for indefinite/self-renewing ban.Ultramarine (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was actually mulling over having some sort of self-renewing ban that would last until a decision was made to let it lapse; but I'm not sure of what a good way of setting it up would be. Kirill ^(prof) 03:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree with Kirill.Biophys (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good. Need to get rid of the socks too, though William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, I concur that an action of this type is necessary; support proposal. Anthøny 21:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --DHeyward (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Well I am actually asking what should he be banned for: for the years-old sockpuppetry or for an alleged (and unproven) recent sockpuppetry?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For acting with a gang of single purpose accounts (whether socks or WP:MEAT) to "own" the worst article on Wikipedia, and for long term tendentious editing which has frustrated all efforts to bring that article into compliance with verifiability and neutral point of view standards. Lesser remedies have failed, so we regrettably need to implement stronger measures. Jehochman ^Talk 07:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of tendentious editing on that article, but Giovanni's editing style is certainly not the worst in that respect (interestingly, practically no evidence of tendentious editing has been presented during this case). Your comment is one of many which throws Wiki acronyms around without offering any specifics (arguably the single most prevalent pattern of tendentious editing on this article for many, many months has been the tendency of article opponents to delete swathes of text with the justification "violates WP:SYN" or "WP:OR" or "it was a war, not terrorism" and then to refuse to explain what they mean by that when pressed, let the issue drop for awhile without further discussion, and then return two weeks later to try to delete it again). It's a bit odd to claim that verifiability is really a major issue with that article (there are some NPOV problems, granted) and it makes me wonder how closely you've really looked at it. Similarly, your repetition of the canard that this is the "worst article on Wikipedia" tends to undermine the rest of your comment. It's extremely difficult to take that claim seriously for several reasons. Actually it's rather remarkable how this article tends to bring out such gross hyperbole from both its supporters and detractors.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the evidence section for Giovanni33 and his sock puppets' editing style. Content issues have not been presented since this is the wrong forum but see [6] for problems with an older version that Giovanni33 and his sock puppets tried to keep.Ultramarine (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no evidence presented of G33's tendentious editing because he's been using his socks to endlessly revert-war for him. Really, this is the entire point of the case. Anybody looks like an angel when they're on 1RR/week. - Merzbow (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be true, I'm just not a fan of how readily accusations are thrown around by any number of parties (on both sides of the article) without much in the way of evidence (I opposed I Write Stuff's proposed finding against you for the same exact reason). A question was asked above about why Giovanni should be banned and Jehochman listed tendentious editing as one of the reasons. Had he just said "sockpuppetry is the only reason needed" I would not have replied. The fact is this case has not really presented evidence of tendentious editing and as such offering it as a rational for a block is not really appropriate. I'm not at all trying to rules lawyer, rather I don't care for the manner in which remedies and arguments are put forward (and accusations against editors levied) which are based on little or no evidence. This isn't a comment on your evidence Merzbow which is meant to demonstrate sockpuppetry and which you feel is sufficient to implement a long term block. There's nothing wrong with that argument because you backed it up with diffs and other evidence. If someone feels it's necessary to present an argument for tendentious editing then they should present evidence of that as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It amazes me that someone can be caught for sockpuppetry and still not get indef blocked. Some users in the past who have done less than Giovanni33, have gotten an indef. blcok. Not to mention other issues. YahelGuhan (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Repeatedly earning blocks during the voting phase is not a good idea. Durova^Charge! 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:DHeyward[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

SPA, Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets[edit]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Biophys (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

oppose as per RedPen and KendrickBernardL (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

twisting the rules for these aims must be opposed.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If a situation cannot be differentiated from a gang of editors agreeing to battle in unison, then we treat them all as if they were one editor. We can never know what's in their minds, therefore we must decide based on what we observe. Jehochman ^Talk 07:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Giovanni33's SPA Meat and Sock puppets[edit]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Biophys (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're breaking Godwin's law and resorting to logical fallacies. We are not limiting the 7 million San Franciscans at all. They are free to edit, except if they start acting as meat puppets for another user by editing all the same articles, and only the same articles, and reinforcing each other lock step, which is what's happening here on this very same page. We see a pattern of editing that is extremely suspicious, connected to the worst article on Wikipedia, with a user who unfortunately has a reputation for sock puppetry. We cannot ignore the convergence of all these factors. Jehochman ^Talk 07:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First you admit that the article is singularly unique -- the worst out of the 2.3 million articles on the wiki -- and then insist it's a cosmic coincidence that multiple editors could some how show up to edit it with the same perspective. While I disagree that it's the worst article on the wikipedia (I have it on good authority that Allegations of Israeli apartheid is actually the worst, or so the Israelis tell me), it's in no way shocking to me that anyone with an Anti-American sentiment who is perturbed by the current administration's rhetoric vis a vis the War on Terrorism could end up at that article and join in the fray. And yet, DHeyward, et al., want to use this unremarkable happenstance as leverage to purge leftist editors from one of the largest centers of leftism in the English speaking world from the project (all leftists from metropolitan New York are already User:NuclearUmpf, as we well know). I don't believe this is particularly clear headed thinking. -- Kendrick7^talk 12:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

r to Jehochman - Your position "We are not limiting the 7 million San Franciscans at all. They are free to edit, except if they start acting as meat puppets" is untenable when your definition of 'meat puppet' or 'sock puppet' is "anyone who supports the same position as G33." TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33 is a SPA account[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why would I want to purge us? Only giovanni33 and his army of sockpuppets. --DHeyward (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Don't you know there's a war on? Meaning the U.S. state terrorism article is closely related to a current event, i.e. the War on Terrorism. It's arguably the main article which suggests the war the U.S. is engaged in is hypocritical, and the fourth entry at War on Terrorism#See also. So it's not as much of a coincidence as you are trying to suggest that multiple leftists might show up here I don't think. -- Kendrick7^talk 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Biophys (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose, as below, we can't ban all editors who share San Francisco values. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Future Giovanni33 Sockpuppets and Meatpuppets[edit]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The proofs of puppetry seems to be as convincing as they possibly can be. I agree with note about sock puppets posted above by Kirill.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. - Merzbow (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. John Smith's (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With reservations. Although such meat puppets should be blocked, we must exercise due care in determining whether somebody is a meatpuppet or is (to paraphrase another user) a (new) editor who sees a dispute and chooses to take sides. Bwrs (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33's 1RR restriction is extended to indefinite[edit]

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)[reply]

Oppose. This simply did work because he systematically violated his 1RR restriction.Biophys (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Giovanni33 is indefinitely banned[edit]

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)[reply]

Support per arguments below.Biophys (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Strongly Disagree. No overwhelming evidence.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think ArbCom, by precedent, does not issue bans exceeding one year in duration. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true...some editors have been banned indefinitely. Giovanni33 should be one of these editors...least until a new arbcom decides to throw out all the hard work done by their predecessors.--MONGO 05:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Checkuser requests for Giovanni33 socks[edit]

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)[reply]

Support.Biophys (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SPA's are experts in their chosen fields, imo. So: Why don't we want experts working here? -- Kendrick7^talk 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Confirmed" should only mean an exact match of IP. "Within northern California" comprises a population of millions of users (over 7 million if you include the San Francisco Bay area), and therefore only justifies "possible" or even "inconclusive." "Likely" would mean more than possible, but less than confirmed; the exact boundaries of "likely" will merit further discussion. Bwrs (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Merzbow[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Editorial process[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template[edit]

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

"Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" warring[edit]

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: [7], [8]. - Merzbow (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support pretty much a given TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Agree with Merzbow's proposal.Ultramarine (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

I understand your frustration, believe me, but assuming it's going to be kept (and I don't see ArbCom making a content decision like that), I believe my two 1RR remedies would be fundamental in keeping the peace. - Merzbow (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'endorse William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably good for the page. John Smith's (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Strong Oppose Recently the September 11 arbcom was decided. The enforcement of the September 11 arbcom has allowed blatant administrative abuse. Incredibly biased and involved admins such as User:Raul654 are blocking users selectively. This effectively squelches one side in an edit war.

The September 11 editors are protesting their boot, but after three weeks, despite all the clear evidence of administrative abuse, no one has done anything.

This is EXACTLY what will happen to the American terrorism page, the deletionist editors, who are admins more than the inclusionists, will use User:Merzbow suggestion to crush opposing views they personally disagree with.

Administrative powers abuse is already taking place on the American terrorism page.

Admin William M Connolley, for example, has abused his admin powers repeatedly on the American terrorism page, protecting the American terrorism page and blocking editors during an edit war he is involved with.

Based on the admin abuse in the September 11 arbcom enforcement and the admin abuse already occurring on the American terrorism page, it is clear that Merzbow's suggestion will only give involved abusive admins more excuses to boot editors they disagree with in edit wars.

Inclusionist (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC) (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --DHeyward (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reject - insufficient. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark. I'm not sure this sort of approach is the right one. Stifling the development of the entire article is not the most productive approach: that introduces anti-disruption measures on those who have not disrupted, which is both unfair, and preventative of article development. Remedies to stem disruption should target disruptive editors, rather than articles that are being disrupted on a "wholesale" basis. Anthøny 08:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fantastic amount of time wasted on just this one sock drawer, do you really we'll have to time to go through it again once new socks pop up? Look at how much we had to go through just to get SGR blocked. We all know G33 will just recruit new socks/meats if he's banned, so I don't particularly care if he is. There is ample precedent for applying extreme measures to certain articles under perennial attack - look at Views of Lyndon LaRouche. I see little willingness on the part of this community to deal with new disruptive SPAs on these articles decisively, which is why we are running to ArbCom. That is the failure here. - Merzbow (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't this just encourage even more socking/meating than we've seen already? G33 is already included on every checkuser related to this article by default simply because he is already under 1RR and therefore an automatic suspect. This would just lead to even more finger pointing, imo. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're referring to, but what we need on this article is more finger pointing, not less. AGF for every brand-new account that's shown up there has proven to be a waste of time (to a T they've all turned out to be disruptive socks/meats). The only admin who's shown any willingness over the long-term to defend against them - WMC - has been attacked and his decisions routinely undone by admins unfamiliar with the situation. Other admins have spoken up in recognition of this state of affairs, but have not involved themselves, leaving the status quo unchanged. In other words, the community has failed miserably at dealing with this situation, which is why we are here. - Merzbow (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we want weekly ArbCom cases here. WMC is actually part of the problem, because since he is an involved admin, his blocked are quickly lifted and edit warring never ceases on the article. If he would act like any other editor, as an involved admin should, and file sock and 3RR reports, that would go a long way towards calming things down there. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we get admins who have zero familiarity with the ongoing problems who will basically just a issue a warning and walk away. Maybe two warnings later you can get a 24h block applied to an obvious disruptive sock. Maybe three blocks later you can finally get them banned. Repeat five times, and good editors get frustrated and leave. No, the definition of "uninvolved admin" can clearly be abused by problem users to restrict anyone familiar with a situation from acting - see User:Raul654/Civil_POV_pushing, which contains a discussion of the problem. - Merzbow (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false dilemma/bifurcation logical fallacy. An admin can be neutral to the POV dispute, and still be familiar with policies as they pertain to editor behaviors on the article. Zero familiarity is not overcome by throwing oneself into only one side of the dispute as WMC has done. Given his deep involvement in the content dispute - in fact he stated that he wants the whole article deleted - and the fact that he has acted only against those editors who opposed his side of the content disputes, and ignored the other side. That is a major problem, esp. since he was also not only edit-warring on the article to push his POV, but often instigates it. This makes him farthest thing possible from an a non-involved admin, and his use of the tools there invariably come off as abusive. A non-involved, impartial admin would warn both sides and blocks would not be one-sided. WMC editing on the article has actually been symptomatic of the problem of that article, which is not SPA accounts (that is a very minor aspect at best), but disruption caused principally by editors who are not willing to discuss or engage on the talk page the academic social discourse of the subject matter, but simply ignore consensus and proceed to blank sections through edit-warring under "I don't like it" rationale. That is the source of disruption on the article. And, any uninvolved admin who takes a look can easily see this is what is going on and then act accordingly - based on behavior, not politics.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs and admin who knows what is going on. The problem is with the unblocking admins. Unthinking unblocks are wrong. If they are interested enough to unblock, they should make a conscious decision to either take on the block, or not. That isn't happening. What is needed here, and elsewhere, is a decision from arbcomm relaxing the rules on who-may-block William M. Connolley (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I don't like the idea of turning admins into feudal lords over their topics of interest. I know you aren't purposefully trying to cause anarchy, but until if and when ArbCom does change it's policies, I still believe that making an effort to go thru the right channels would effectively do less harm and more good, even if it did, occasionally require lengthy explanation. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - an attempt by the sockpuppeteer and most blatant edit warrior to get everyone else restricted due to his actions? I think not. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1RR per week on "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" for new editors[edit]

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.[9] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

endorse proposed remedy: "warning them sternly" is a joke and utterly ineffective William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Allow editing only by established users.Biophys (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. More established editors = POV Merzbow supports (i.e. deletion of article).

I have opened Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States which will more fully address the problems that the American terrorism page has. I don't think User:Merzbow's two proposals, buried at the end of a arbitration about Giovanni33, adequately addresses American terrorism page's problems. Inclusionist (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reject - no basis. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - avoids more suspiciously spa's from popping up, as they incontrovertibly have done at an alarming rate. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:I Write Stuff[edit]

FYI: I Write Stuff (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. - William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles[edit]

Merzbow & Supergreenred[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not know what the difference is, if you need to remove something, be BOLD. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only clerks can remove other editors comments. Non-clerks will be reverted. See Fact and Principle for the difference. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree with BigT. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Not a principle or a fact. --DHeyward (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misdirection[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Supergreenred & Merzbow 2[edit]

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)[reply]

How about Merzbow also not spelling "it's" correctly: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Similar to Supergreenred oddly enough. Was that faked? Or is "lets" not really evidence of much? --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. As I said in talk, all of those are in fact correct grammatical usages of contractions, whereas my point with the G33 evidence was that his usages are so frequently incorrect in the same way across accounts. - Merzbow (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not supported. The evidence presented so far is far from being conclusive. John Smith's (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not conclusive, just as the evidence presented against me is not conclusive.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence against you is far more conclusive. John Smith's (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so you are saying it's not conclusive. That was my point.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have you ran a checkuser? Inclusionist (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposal by User:Raymond arritt[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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)[reply]

Support. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support - A more drastic alternative to my proposals, but one I have no problem with. - Merzbow (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is indeed the heart of the matter, and I don't think any more evidence is necessary to substantiate the idea that G33 fundamentally views Wikipedia as a battlefield. And the everyone-who-has-a-problem-with-me-is-a-right-wing-zealot gambit is failing miserably here. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a gross distortion of my view, and in fact twists it into the opposite of the way I think about the article. You seem to be confusing my description of the problem (editors treating WP as a battlefield), with my advocacy of that problem. To point out the problem and recognize it, is to embrace it. The reason I point out this reality is because I want it fixed. I want editors to be less concerned with taking personal sides, and leave their strong personal POV/politics OUT of the article/content disputes as it has no relevance to WP policies, which is the only thing that should be guiding decisions. The fact that editors are not doing this is the main source of disruption on the article. To say my view here is evidence that I'm causing it, makes no sense.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support. Another possible solution would be to delete this article.Biophys (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - Some people get hangnails - to prevent hangnails we should cut off everybody's hand. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Bigtimepiece, Ryan Paddy and Redpenofdoom. BernardL (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support. The worst article in Wikipedia needs a rewrite and this would be a good start. --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is not the place for content disputes but I will just point out that Giovanni33's claims that there have never been any concrete examples of problems such as OR is completely false. I refer to my partial list of problems with an older version: [16]. The current version, which Giovanni33 and his sockpuppets edit warred to prevent, has fixed some of these problems but others remain.Ultramarine (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization is incorrect. I want that version deleted. I want all the hyperbole and OR deleted. I would like the ttle changed to something that is neutral. It is clear that there are a group of editors intent on codifying their viewpoint in the form of an article by assembling viewpoints of partisan sources that happen to agree with them. these editors might as well create articles Titled "List of things we consider bad and the people who agree with us." It's entirely unencyclopedic. Certainly the events listed in the article are historical and relevant. We have articles on all of those events and if there are events we don't have covered, we can create articles for them and include the notable viewpoints in them. But this "List of Bad Things" is entirely inappropriate. Stub it, rename it, rewrite it and see where we are. Oh and ban disruptive puppet masters so that consensus can be achieved. --DHeyward (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's an overly roundabout way of saying that you wanted the article deleted, which is what I was getting at when I said "you personally dislike the article intensely and actually want it deleted." You'll have to clue me in as to how my characterization of your view was incorrect.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Wikipedia editors writing encyclopedic articles together? Can we do that? Yes, we can. That's the whole point of this website.

It won't be easy, and I'm sure there will be lots of mistakes made. But the point of Wikipedia is not to be fair to contributors (nor to their points of view), nor to produce new knowledge, but to produce encyclopedic articles summarizing existing knowledge. (Which is quite hard enough, thank you.) Our processes are not intended to produce just outcomes, but to prevent things that stop us from making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia — including spending lots of time and effort on process. People who cannot, or will not, work towards Wikipedia's goal should find another website to contribute to, the sooner the better. CWC 11:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Newcomers are always to be welcomed.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"SPA accounts" are not necessarily bad.[edit]

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:AGF TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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[17] 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.[18] -- Kendrick7^talk 00:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

New alleged puppetry by Giovanni33's has not been confrimed[edit]

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:

Support I have admitted without reservation that my past transgressions were wrong and I sincerely offer my apologies for this, once again. The story is long and complex but I did violate WP policies and that is all that matters. I should not have done that and I have long realized it was wrong. So I will always continue to apologize for this, and I will remain deeply appreciative of the generosity and kindness the community has shown me in regards to forgiving these serious violations; that is why I do not blame those who find the current evidence suggestive of that past. However, truthfully, evaluating the current evidence in a critical manner - and one not prejudiced by my past - while suggestive, does not establish a finding of continued violations, nor could it, since I have in fact long abandoned such shameful behaviors. I believe in the project's values and rules and would never again undermine its integrity. I remain confident that the wisdom of the committee will be able to discern the truth of this matter and act in accordance to the highest principles of justice and fairness.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not agreed. Evidence looks pretty substantial. John Smith's (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree. Vote to drop case. Despite idealogical differences, he is a good contributor.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The San Francisco Bay Area is a hot-bed of leftist activism[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't find that the evidence supports this conclusion.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree it looks suspicious, but when the articles concern topics of local interest, such geographical coincidences are not unheard of. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually its called "The People's Republic of Berkley." We are proud of the designation.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And here I thought the Republic of Cambridge was one of a kind. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had already implied the same TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good God, people. Do you really think the Committee is going to endorse a blanket generalization about the political leanings of a large, densely populated metropolitan area? If not, why bother with this proposal? If I told you that I reside in a "hotbed of leftist activism", would that absolve me if a bunch of SPA's from my neighborhood showed up to team up with me? MastCell ^Talk 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This generalization is a fact, and it's completely relevant. Alone it doesn't absolve, however it provides a probable explanation by adjusting the expectations as to what we would expect to find here as the political norm: many editors who are from the SF Bay Area will tend to agree with my POV, and thus my POV not being unique but representing a view that is concentrated within this geographical area, puts the evidence that others agree with me in proper perspective and context. Specifically, that there is nothing too unusual with a finding of other editors from this area agreeing with me. Now, if I were in some conservative part of town and we had the same situation occur, it would be indeed highly suspicious if not completely damning. However, what we have here is almost expected, and thus the evidence showing they are from this area--or rather the point its trying to make--is greatly mitigated as a result.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good argument to topic ban all such accounts. Wikipedia is not a platform for activism, no more than it is a platform for corporate advertising. Jehochman ^Talk 08:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but what has to be shown was that the leftists editors were actually acting as activists on Wikipedia, i.e. violating NPOV, etc. Simply having a POV about a subject matter and editing articles that they are very much interested in and have knowledge about, is not a reason to muzzle them on these topics, per se. This only speaks to a logical explanation for why their POV would be representative of this geographical area, the same area I'm in, and this fact undermines the contention that these editors therefore must be my socket-puppets. Nothing more.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also millions in NYC with this POV. Probably 30 million more across the country. Yet all of these SPAs come from within 30 miles of you. And edit (essentially) nowhere else. And agree with everything you say. And go only to articles you've gotten into disputes with Ultramarine on, not any of the other 50,000 articles of interest to liberals. One doesn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what's going on. - Merzbow (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not exactly true. They do edit other places I have not and vise-versa: Philippines and Nicaraguan related articles. In Dr.Gabriela's case, also medical related articles. So let's not cut off the toes to make the shoe fit. To borrow a famous phrase, "If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit!" hehe The disputes with Ulramarine, are true, but that hardly is unique with me. Also, as BigTimePeace's more impartial investigation revealed that I in fact disagreed with one of these alleged socks over the blocking of an editor editor that the "sock" was trying to get blocked. That is, the "sock" reported him and was looking for a block, and I disagreed and said no block was needed, etc, and prevailed in my recommendation. The sock theory is based on helping out with a goal, not hurting. Unless you can account for this fact, your argument doesn't work as it would just be cherry pick only things that support your thesis and ignoring everything else. So, how do you explain that? Again, if it doesn't fit...Giovanni33 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case is not built on a single piece of evidence, and it isn't torn down by a single piece of evidence. Take any 5 normal accounts editing on the same articles and almost certainly you will find more than a single disagreement among them. This case is about patterns, there are no single smoking guns on either side. The overwhelming crush of the patterns points to you as sock/meatmaster. And I would note the painfully obvious collusion between SGR and your account regarding this faked talk page post is a far more positive piece of evidence than your minor disagreement with SGR is dispositive. - Merzbow (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False premise. If there is one significant part of the puzzle that should fit but doesn't, and you have no plausible explanation to make this significant fact fit into your theory, the theory must be wrong. For example, consider DNA testing. Say we have a lot of circumstantial evidence that convicts someone but later one piece of evidence, DNA, doesn't fit, what happens? The case is thrown out. So either explain it, or you have no case. Do do not get to ignore that and look at only your "patterns"? Looking for patterns is nice, but as has been shown the pattern fits other theories just as well, if not better. Yes, take any five editors and you will find disagreements, but you are not alleging we are different editors. You are saying that I am this other editor. Since it makes no sense that I'd be simultaneously trying to both block someone and trying to not get them blocked, your theory that we are one in the same is effectively crushed, just as a DNA test would for criminal case based on circumstantial evidence alone. It is the smoking gun evidence that proves you wrong. Your insistence of ignoring this critical piece (since you can't explain it) and not changing your theory is simply a sign of dogmatism. We should be seeking the truth from facts, not asserting a theory and looking for only facts that tend to support it and ignore those things that refute it.

Also, you are wrong about "faked evidence." There is no faked evidence. That your unproven assertion. Those are real edits, as the diff's found (nothing is faked). I found and listed them (I could easily find more, if I looked), only to prove that your method of evidence was very flawed; with cherry picking anyone can be make to look like anyone given a very selective picking and choosing what to present and ignoring everything else. But, your point that this account is imitating you on purpose is one that if is good enough for you to use in your defense, is good enough for me. So here you are agreeing with me that this account imitates for nefarious reasons. Ok, let's accept that premise. But if so, you contract this standard when you do not allow me to make that very same claim in my defense: that this account imitates me in some ways (although that is questionable). Still, by the very same reasoning I can claim this is 'faked evidence." You can't have it both ways, but that is exactly what you insist on, and depend upon to make a case against someone who is innocent. So I present your very flawed method itself as evidence of my innocence, under the reasoning that if you can't find a stronger, better method to prove your case, you simply don't have one.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation is not causation. See [19]. We are not the beautifully unique snowflakes that our kindergarten teachers told us we all were, I'm sorry to report. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kendrick7. That is exactly one of my main points and criticism of Merbow's evidence/methods. This case study is an excellent case in point this kind of fallacious reasoning indicative of much of pseudoscience. To quote are very good article on the subject:"Pseudosciences have been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development."Exactly what we have here. That is why more meaningful, logical, and critical methods must be called to service, and properly put the "pattern" evidence in perspective. When we do, we find the evidence does not implicate me any more than other possible editors, and when we consider all the evidence makes it almost impossible for the theory that I am all the other editors to hold up. True for form, his response is not to offer some plausible explanation but simply to ignore it. Basically, "don't look there, look here, and only here!!"Giovanni33 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33 is an established editor and NOT an SPA account[edit]

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)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

1. Formally impose a binding stipulation as per the previous community based resolution initiated by Admin MusicalLinguist (see below for details).[edit]

This was the solution to the previous socket-puppet problem and was intended to be utilized to prevent any possible future occurrence in my case. Unfortunately, this was not followed, in part due to the lack of a central location where these procedures were clearly laid out, and the fact that ML has retired, unfortunately. Arbcom can make this rather fool-proof solution official, and that should, for all practical matters, address the legitimate concerns.

Relevant details:

The principle I agreed to, voluntarily, about 2 years ago, regarding puppetry issues is rather simple and practical: I pledged a willingness to recuse myself from any articles should other editors appear who give the appearance of being my puppets. My only request was that I would be informed that this was suspected, by an uninvolved admin who thought it would be reasonable, and be advised what I should do to avoid such appearances. If asked to, I would stop editing the article until such time that these suspicious accounts no longer edited there, thus removing even the appearance that I’m puppeting.

I still am willing to abide by this self-imposed restriction/remedy on the principal that I should avoid any appearance of impropriety. This agreement was informal (outside of any arbcom case) by Musical Linguist and myself but with the full involvement of the community who supported it. Despite this, over a year has passed and Musical Linguist is no longer with us. None of this was put into practice when these accounts showed up, but if followed, woudl have resolved the issue.

What did happen? Despite the previous assurances to the contrary, I was only made aware of these suspicions in the form of a perm block, instead of any warning or investigation where I was allowed to address in any manner. This was done by Jehochman , prompted by the usual characters, of course. But he quickly reversed his block after having significant doubt per “many other admins familiar with my editing style.” At this time I inquired to a trusted admin if I should just avoid editing the article given the situation, and he responded “You don't need to avoid that article, just stick to your restrictions (especially reverts-talk page, etc., stuff), and, generally, stay 100 percent by the book. This was just a case of mistaken identity, it looks like. So, no worries!” Wed 4/16/08 7:49 PM (admin identity witheld until permission is granted to reveal). So based on the suspicions I stopped editing until I sought advice from an admin, specifically asking if I should avoid the articles while these suspected editors were there. I was given the OK to continue at the article.

I also offered to do the same on my talk page. No one said I should, despite this offer. Also noteworthy is that the other accounts no longer edited on the article but branched out, per Jehochman ’s recommendation to them. They no longer edit warred either (as I believe that was the condition of their unblocking). Therefore, this arbcom case, being initiated after these changes, seems to try to fix a problem that no longer even exists, or that a remedy that should be satisfactory to all parties, already exists. However, since it has been accepted, it makes sense to formally make this previously obtained resolution official so that in the future the proper steps can be taken so as to avoid any possibility of puppetry, by preventing any behaviors that even lend the appearance of it.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

With all due respect, this sounds a lot (regardless of your intentions) like you want the right to use puppets, but then if people get suspicious to be tipped off before it goes to blocks, editing restrictions, etc so you can go find another page to work on. People will not be blocked just because other editors are supporting their edits on a page - it takes a lot more than that.

And I'm not sure how the accounts not editing the page anymore is worth much, given that they had no other choice given their restrictions/this arb-comm case. John Smith's (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no right to use puppets and I do not use puppets anymore. I am very sorry I ever did but that is not something I'd ever do again. However, I accept the consequences that I did, and part of that is not just being sorry but acknowledging the validity of the concerns when appearances are suspect. By following the above, one does not need to present a case and bring evidence to enforce some kind of restriction: I voluntarily restrict myself based on the first appearance of any possible socky bussiness going on, i.e. any new accounts, SPA-like accounts, etc. I'll recuse myself per recommendation of qualified volunteer mentor, suggested below.

So are you now proposing that you be held accountable for something that you already agreed to be held accountable to? It sounds like you should already be doing this and re-implementing it should not be a new remedy. Rather, you should be held accountable for not adhering to it since it was imposed. It's quite obvious that the conditions you describe have happened on a number of articles, yet you you have not withdrawn. Why would we believe that you would suddenly adhere to this and conversely, why shouldn't you just be blocked for not adhering to it? --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did do my part, if you read above, but the process was not followed by others, who probably did not know about it. This is because there was no formal, centralized place, and the admin who was to follow this with guidance has retired. Again, review the facts. The first time I became aware of a suspicion, I contacted an admin and asked if I should just avoid the article, if there is a serious belief that Ive gone back to socking again. All my feed back I received from my inquiry was, "no, it was a mistaken identity, you don't have to leave the article, and even the blocking admin who reversed himself apologized for me for the inconvenience. Therefore, I did my part and asked, and was told there was no further belief or suspicion. So I continued to edit. Thus, I did follow the agreement but others did not: they simply started this arbcom case. If the above solution was formalized by an arbcom ruling, and followed by those who have a reasonable and legitimate concern of puppetry, it would be an easy way to address their concerns and make impossible any fears that I'm cheating, etc.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Implementation of the above stipulation but with guidance of an assigned Mentor[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It strikes me that in order for the above to work there has to be a good mentor who volunteers for the job. The mentor has to be someone everyone has confidence in being fair and firm, and that I'd have to abide. I don't mind facing restrictions, not based on any actual puppetry to be established, but merely the appearance of possible puppetry. If the mentor says it's reasonable, then I will avoid the article, until the mentor says, problem cleared up, its ok for you to edit there again. Basically I don't want there to be any perception of unfair content advantage, as that creates a very negative, bad-faith editing environment. I feel this is my fault given real socket-puppet abuses in my past, and despite being reformed, the past hangs heavily over me, and I remain open to the charge anytime there is a new editor who supports me. For instance, look at this one:[20] I was accused of being him, too. Luckily that thesis was changed, but I always get nervous and am not sure what to do. The above remedy should solve and address all concerns, practically speaking, and avoids doing so in a manner where the cure is worse than the disease, i.e. treating the illness by killing the patient.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the offer below, I would be happy to accept Ryan Postlethwaite, who may in fact win election to the Wikipedia Foundation Board. I would be happy to accept any other fair admins as well. I am quite open and flexible with abiding with what the community deems is best that allows me to continue to contribute to the project in a way that best helps its continued growth.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'd actually like to mentor Giovanni. We've discussed the problems with his editing, and I've tried to explain to him where is problems lie. He seems quite sincere when he tells me he's made mistakes, and I think that with some strict restrictions, and mentorship, we could see some very constructive contributions from Giovanni. I do hope the committee considers this and I'll try and come up with some firm ideas for editing restrictions over the next few days. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Giovanni has been puppeting I think it's a bit late for mentoring, Ryan - there's no reason to believe he will change and has had plenty of chances to reform. If his problem is merely editing, mentoring might work in addition to things like an extension of his revert parole - but not as a replacement. John Smith's (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. First of all I have not been puppeting. But this is about a having am impartial admin provide the guidance necessary to advise/alert me when and if a reasonable and legitimate suspicion that I could be puppetting based on appearances, and thus I would desist from editing the article until I was told it would be OK, again. For the above remedy to work, an active admin in the role of a mentor/point man would be necessary. The above remedy would have worked even without a formal arbcom ruling if it were not for the fact that the previous admin assuming this role had not retired.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said "if" - it is for the arbitration committee to decide whether you have been puppeting or not. On another point, why did you only propose this now rather than at your last arbitration case? John Smith's (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last arbcase was not about this issue. The time to put it in place is here, now, when we are dealing with a puppet case.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last arbcase was about your editing behaviour, which is also part of this case. Also Ryan is offering to mentor you generally as far as I can see not just on this one concept that you have proposed. So unless you are going to say your editing has got worse since last year (i.e. you need a mentor now, not back then), it's difficult to see how this proposal of yours is anything other than a last-ditch attempt to avoid facing even heavier sanctions than you are currently under. If you are not permanently blocked I would support this but only in addition to the other remedies that have been put forward. John Smith's (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, please drop this, and Giovanni, please don't respond to John. I remember the last ArbCom case (involving both of you) quite well. It had nothing to do with sockpuppetry. Had it not been for credible sockpuppetry accusations there is no way this case would have been brought—it's the heart of the matter. Of course they are both about "editing behavior" but they are fundamentally different and we all know that. It is utterly unsurprising that Giovanni would bring up a past remedy geared toward future accusations of sockpuppetry when we are now in a situation where there are accusations of sockpuppetry. The last case was about you and Giovanni edit warring, not about socking. If you honestly believe it would have made sense for Giovanni to propose a mentor to deal with accusations of sockpuppetry in a case where there were no such accusations then feel free to think that. It doesn't make much sense but to each their own. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is a fine idea and I'm sure Ryan would be an effective mentor. In my experience Giovanni is quite open to suggestions about his editing from editors for whom he has some trust. If he's willing to enter in a mentor/mentee relationship with Ryan and take that admin's advice/direction then I'm all for it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Bigtimepeace[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Evaluating sockpuppetry[edit]

1) In determining whether two accounts are sockpuppets of the same individual, administrators, the community, and the Arbitration Committee may consider all relevant evidence, including CheckUser findings, contribution histories and patterns, similarities or differences in online mannerisms, explanations provided by the users in question, and any other legitimate and reliable information available. In accordance with the principle of assuming good faith, allegations of sockpuppetry are not to be made lightly, but only based upon reasonable cause. In investigating and resolving such allegations, abusive sockpuppetry by established contributors will not be presumed, but is to be inferred based only upon a substantial weight of credible evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Evaluating_sockpuppetry and obviously appropriate here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Merzbow (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Giovanni33[edit]

1) Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has by his own admission engaged in abusive sockpuppetry in the past, however the evidence presented in this case does not establish a current and ongoing pattern of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry by that user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I have admitted without reservation that my past transgressions were wrong and I sincerely offer my apologies for this, once again. The story is long and complex but I did violate WP policies and that is all that matters. I should not have done that and I have long realized it was wrong. So I will always continue to apologize for this, and I will remain deeply appreciative of the generosity and kindness the community has shown me in regards to forgiving these serious violations; that is why I do not blame those who find the current evidence suggestive of that past. However, truthfully, evaluating the current evidence in a critical manner - and one not prejudiced by my past - while suggestive, does not establish a finding of continued violations, nor could it, since I have in fact long abandoned such shameful behaviors. I believe in the project's values and rules and would never again undermine its integrity. I remain confident that the wisdom of the committee will be able to discern the truth of this matter and act in accordance to the highest principles of justice and fairness.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. An alternative for the committee if more recent evidence has led to a rethinking of Kirill's initial FoF on this issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, evidence is sufficient. - Merzbow (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. After spending a few hours pouring over diffs, I have come to the conclusion that the connection is so clear that only way to miss the connection is willful ignorance. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are accusing myself and several others of "willful ignorance." That kind of language has no place at ArbCom, or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter, as you should know. Just FYI, I can assure you that I am certainly not willing myself into ignorance on this question. I don't think the evidence demonstrates sockpuppetry by Giovanni (or meatpuppets controlled by him), particularly given the apparent connections between one or more of these accounts and Stone put to sky. Sure, it's possible that I am wrong—I'm less given to certainty than you (and some others) are when it comes to situations like this one where we have incomplete information. One thing of which I am certain is that drive-by comments that reference the supposed intentional stupidity of good-faith editors are completely unhelpful.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Evidence quite clearly shows abusive sock/meatpuppetry by giovanni. --DHeyward (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per above comments the evidence looks quite credible and clear. John Smith's (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supergreenred[edit]

1) Evidence presented strongly suggests that Supergreenred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account and likely sockpuppet or meatpuppet of another user dedicated largely to participating in the content dispute at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. No definitive information about the puppet master, but we can draw conclusions about this and other accounts.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a sock. As the blocking administrator, I agree with this, though I think the block stands on its own with regard to this account, even without this finding. No comment has been made at the user's talk page since I left an indefinite block notice (link to SGR's talk page) on May 26. R. Baley (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to alter the wording of this to mention the fact that he was already indef blocked. Basically language should probably be added to this explaining that the committee endorses the existing block or something to that effect.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Merzbow (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafaelsfingers[edit]

1) Evidence presented strongly suggests that Rafaelsfingers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account and likely sockpuppet or meatpuppet of another user dedicated largely to participating in the content dispute at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, as above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Unsupported by evidence, especially as you can't even determine who the puppet master is. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Merzbow (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DrGabriela[edit]

1) Evidence presented strongly suggests that DrGabriela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account and likely sockpuppet or meatpuppet of another user dedicated largely to participating in the content dispute at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, as above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. Unsupported by evidence, especially as you can't even determine who the puppet master is. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Merzbow (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --DHeyward (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Supergreenred[edit]

1) User:Supergreenred is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of another user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm unsure as to the typical remedy for sock/meapuppet accounts, but an indef block does not seem unreasonable. Also I don't know if it's typical in ArbCom cases to block sock/meat accounts when the identity of the puppet master is unclear, however such remedies seem appropriate in this case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The method that links these editors to banned user SPTS using the exact same methods and assumptions that link them also to Giovanni33. All of these accounts, including Giovanni33, should be blocked indefinitely because they are indistinguishable meatpuppets of each other and your evidence is quite compelling. --DHeyward (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in the phrase "indistinguishable meatpuppets of each other" (a truly troubling phrase in any content dispute—I hope we can all recognize that) we get to the whole heart of the matter. At some point "meatpuppets" become real editors, even real people. And ultimately it does matter which accounts are directly connected to others because of actual socking or meatpuppetry and which just happen to sound similar due to editing interests. DHeyward seems to miss this distinction. I am glad, however, that he finds my evidence "quite compelling."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "at some point", but at all times "meatpuppets" are real editors and real people. Meatpuppets don't have to know each other personally. They don't have to share the same locale. But when their interests are so directly intertwined so that they are indistinguishable from another editor, they are meatpuppets. Meatpuppets aren't automatons but editors that act in concert in a very narrow range with almost identical and supportive views. This is quite a bit different than overlapping interests and similiar POVs. You have similiar interests and POV to Giovanni, yet you are not his meatpuppet. You walk away from articles and broaden your contributions. Meatpuppets don't. Even after the accusations, they still act like meatpuppets. Giovanni33 continues to talk about the day in the future that he is going to start following the remedy imposed on him years ago about moving on to different articles. The meatpuppet vs. sympathetic editor distinction is obvious to everyone here. There is overwhelming evidence that the editors you list are meatpuppets. The next question is are they also sockpuppets. Geographical, timeline and lexical evidence suggests they are. --DHeyward (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are stretching WP:MEAT beyond it's intent; people who show up to edit here completely independently shouldn't be punished for having the same views as some editors already here. One person, one voice -- not one geographical region, one voice. Again, by this logic, you could make a case to ban all Israeli editors next. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one instance I know of, ever (which BTP pointed out), in which any of those accounts has ever said and done anything that might distinguish them from Giovanni. Otherwise they dutifully have followed him around like puppies. Come on - he's done this before, in the exact same way. People are acting like you need to be Lester Freamon to solve these cases. No, you don't. You just need to find the guy who's done it before, and lives 30 miles away from all the other accounts. There is no Cigarette-Smoking Man in Taiwan behind the curtain. - Merzbow (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is blatantly false. I have been in editorial disputes on a number of articles where I was reverted and yet none of these accounts came to my aid, or even visited the article in question. And, like-wise, the the other way around. In one very telling incident discovered by BigTimePeace, I showed up to undermine what one of these alleged "socks" wanted to do, specifically in trying to get the user user:DevilwiththeDevil blocked. I said on his 3RR report: "I think Dance with the Devil is generally a good editor so maybe just a warning would be best. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. He seems to acknowledge that he needed to cool down, and that is good enough for me.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC) And the fact that I do not get help on other articles where I get reverted, proves that your narrative "they dutifully have followed him around like puppies" is false. So I would appreciate if if you would stop repeating these highly exaggerated falsehoods. If you need to base your case on such methods, it only goes to speak to the weak nature a position that needs to so greatly skew reality to make it fit. Also, your appeal 'come on- he's done this in the past" is not relevant, since there is a stretch of some 2 years ago. Why start now, again? This is not evidence, and I am not the Cigarette-Smoking Man that you keep insisting despite all logic and evidence to the contrary.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Merzbow (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafaelsfingers[edit]

2) User:Rafaelsfingers is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of another user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, as above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. One person, one voice. I'd much rather err on the side of giving one person two voices, than giving one person no voice. Without knowing who this person is a sock of we run the serious risk of doing the latter. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Merzbow (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Block them all. --DHeyward (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DrGabriela[edit]

2) User:DrGabriela is blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of another user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, as above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. One person, one voice. As above, I'd much rather err on the side of giving one person two voices, than giving one person no voice. Without knowing who this person is a sock of we run the serious risk of doing the latter. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. - Merzbow (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --DHeyward (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by The Evil Spartan[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

1RR per 24h on "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" for previously involved editors[edit]

3) The article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States‎ may not be reverted more than once per 24 hours by any editor who has significantly edited the article in the past.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Alternative to #1: avoids throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Parties that have engaged in edit warring are restrained; allows other parties that may come to a better agreement not to be punished. 90% of the drama from this article has come due to Giovanni, socks, and and other single purpose accounts. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spartan had originally proposed this in my section, I moved it here. The "#1" he mentions above is in reference to this proposed remedy of mine. For the record, I don't understand this proposal, it seems opposite to what we want - we need to put a brake on the new SPAs, not established editors. - Merzbow (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, I fully agree with your #2. However, this is an alternative to #1, which I think is too harsh on established editors. I worry your restriction will allow spa's to come in as socks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it takes a heck of a lot of discipline for a sockmaster to craft a new sock to not look like an SPA - said sock would have to edit on a wide range of other articles for a long period of time beforehand. So far, our problem on "Allegations..." has been with lots of brand-new SPAs continually hitting the article, while everyone looks the other way and whistles AGF - so they keep doing it. We need to craft the remedy to fix the problem at hand. - Merzbow (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Jehochman[edit]

Proposed remedies[edit]

Mentorship for Giovanni33[edit]

1. Giovanni33 is required to edit under supervision of a mentor for a period of one year.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would support this but perhaps extend it to indefinite for my own protection given that the previous incident was about 2 years ago. See discussion about it here:[21]Giovanni33 (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

From the discussion on my talk page. This will help avoid edit warring and meat puppetry, I think. Jehochman ^Talk 00:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this will stop him from creating sockpuppets and meatpuppets how exactly...? - Merzbow (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not illegal to have other accounts, so it doesn't stop that, nor needs to. But for the record, I do not have any other accounts, nor intend to create any. What it does do, is effectively make impossible any abusive use of multiple accounts, i.e. creating false consensus, violating revert rules, etc. How does it do so? Because the mentor can be consulted by myself or anyone, anytime I see - or anyone else sees - an account that looks like a possible puppet in some way, i.e. a new account supporting me, esp. in more than one article. If there is any reasonable suspicion that "Gio is socking again" I will simply remove myself from the situation and thus making impossible any possible advantage, defeating the whole point of puppeting in the first place, and addressing the concerns from fellow editors of possible "cheating." Yes, it may not be fair to me to recuse myself from articles only on superficial appearance, but I'm willing to abide by this type of regulation as part of realizing it's my own fault for engaging in puppetry in the past that has always left me quite vaunerable to the charge - real or not. I'd much prefer this than having the constant user checks, and suspicions, and then even arbcom cases by those who want me banned. This remedy not only protects any legitimate concerns of editors claiming abusive use of multiple accounts, but also protects me from future charges. I will simply control my own account in ways that refuse to edit in patterns that are even suggestive of puppetry. A mentor can objectively assist me in sizing up any situation and advising me accordingly, given some pretty high standards of avoiding even appearances. I'm fine with that.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are here because people believe "Gio is socking again", what have you done to remove yourself from the articles? Answer: Nothing. Since this exact remedy was imposed on you when you first started socking, it's now an empty remedy because you simply don't abide by it. --DHeyward (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I did not do nothing. I did was I was supposed to do but the advise I obtained when I inquired was "you are doing nothing wrong, you do not have to leave the article." You asked this same question above, and I gave you a detailed response. I assume you missed it since you are repeating yourself here. Go up to my remedy above (essentially the same as here) and you will find a detailed answer. In short, I did do my part, but the process was not followed by others, who probably did not know about it. This is because there was no formal, centralized place, and the admin who originally set it up has retired. The first time I became aware of a suspicion, I contacted an admin and asked if I should just avoid the article. Response to my inquiry was, "no, it was a mistaken identity, you don't have to leave the article," and even the blocking admin who reversed himself apologized for me for the inconvenience. Therefore, I did my part and asked, and was told there was no further belief or suspicion. So I continued to edit. Therefore, I did follow the agreement but others did not: they simply started this arbcom case ignoring that remedy that could have been used. To make it formal would protect me from this again, provided I abide, and address any legitimate concerns. This should work if the solution/remedy is formalized by an arbcom ruling, and followed by those who have a reasonable and legitimate concern of puppetry; it would be an easy way to address their concerns and make impossible any fears that I'm cheating, etc.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds good as I commented in a similar proposed remedy above, and we seem to have a neutral admin in Ryan Postlethwaite who is willing to take this on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient by itself. If Giovanni has been using puppets he shouldn't have yet another chance to get away with disruption and avoiding sanctions already on him. If he has merely been breaking his revert parole and stale edit-warring then I think a temporary block and indefinite revert parole would be the minimum - mentoring could be considered on top of that. John Smith's (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by R. Baley[edit]

Proposed remedy[edit]

3 month-300 edit rule[edit]

1) For a probationary period of 1 year, to be implemented at the close of this arbitration, the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States may only be edited by accounts which have existed in excess of 90 days and are credited with at least 300 good faith edits consistently made over the minimum 90 day period (caveat:anyone may revert obvious vandalism).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, assuming that other principles such as Kirill Lokshin's proposed principles 2 (Sockpuppetry) and 3 (Who's who), or similiar, end up passing.

Rationale: Articles with a long contentious history of dispute need a new approach. There are generally 2 types of new accounts which arrive at contentious articles: 1) legitimate new editors, and 2) reincarnated socks of POV pushers determined to spread the Truth (capital 'T'). For either case, I argue the editor behind the account should not be at these types of articles. For the legitimate new editor, s/he should not be exposed to this side of Wikipedia right off the bat, and learn to adopt behavior that for the most part doesn't exist on hundreds of thousands of other articles. These other articles are where s/he should be contributing instead; learning the ropes in a much friendlier environment. For the POV pushing sock account, obviously, we don't want them back if they're keeping up the same behavior as s/he did earlier, with one of their many old accounts. Assume good faith is just stretched too far and becomes virtually non-existent when sock after sock turns up making the same arguments over and over again. What's makes it even worse is that in dealing with it, bad behavior is propagated, and thus spread to other areas of Wikipedia, by tired but valuable and long-contributing editors. Not only that, but when random accounts show up in droves to support fringe views, suspicion (justified or not) is raised against equally hard-working and valuable contributors who happen to hold a non-mainstream view of things. This creates a poisonous environment for everyone. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is another alternative to my proposals, and is arguably superior. - Merzbow (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a whole lot of editing going to "Allegations..." right now, do you? Think about it. - Merzbow (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, right now that's an article that no one can edit. Not sure how that's relevant to our fundamental principles. Although I was an IP wikignome back in the day, only having to get an account because of the Seigenthaler incident, I certainly cut my chops on one of the "allegations of" articles, and as such, I think this article is a perfectly fine landing pad for new editors. As for the edit warring, it would perhaps help if certain other long time contributors printed out WP:PRESERVE and, let's say, taped it to their monitors, imo, but as we operate by WP:Consensus, honestly, a sock here and there isn't going to be the end of the world. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose complete violation of WP:AGF. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm neither particularly opposed nor particularly supportive of this remedy. I think a lower threshold for Checkuser requests for new accounts on this article and some vigilance on the part of editors and admins could probably accomplish the same results without a formal rule. This proposal does not speak of enforcement, and obviously someone would have to do that (nicely explain to new accounts that they cannot edit there yet, I guess block them if they do so anyway). It would perhaps be just as beneficial to simply warn new users that come to the article that "here there be dragons" and they might want to get their feet wet elsewhere first. There may though be the occasional new user who shows up and is very constructive right off the bat - I don't see why we necessarily want a pro forma rule about number of edits. On the other hand, it would probably not do a whole lot of damage (and might do some good) if we did have this rule. I also continue to have problems with remedies for the article as that has not at all been the subject of this case. We simply have not discussed the article itself (no evidence about it has been presented) and it seems odd to craft remedies which are not based on actual evidence. If ArbCom actually wanted to take on the article here (unfortunately so far they have given no indication of whether they view it as outside the scope of the case or not) we would probably want a few specific remedies which were the product of deliberation.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BTP, thanks for the feedback. I think this measure should be implemented to protect both genuine new editors, as well as long time contributers who have proven their worth to Wikipedia. For the clever (or at least well-practiced) sock-master, evading a positive check-user result is something that can be maintained for a while. And every time they get caught, they have the opportunity to evaluate where they went wrong and start anew. . .to the exasperation of many. This remedy would also prevent someone from quickly (or easily) signing in to act as a meat puppet on behalf of their real-life friend (and if they live a 1000 miles away -well, checkuser is useless for that case). This small amount of experience to gain is still a bit of work . . .and in the mean time, better judgment might also be gained. Also, there is an investment in the account on the part of the editor (people will be less likely to want to throw away a 3 month account with a good rep, than a 5 day old account with no real edit history).

I think in practice genuine new editors without an axe to grind would be fine, and allowed. New editors turning up as SPAs doing nothing but reversions would be different William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny. Some translation is needed here. By "axe to grind" you mean "disagree with you." You've shown this pattern with only attacking one side (the one that doesn't agree with your POV) and leaving the other edit warring parties alone. Discrimination indeed!Giovanni33 (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope discretion would be used, however the number of people who have swarmed in asserting "HOMG! sockpuppetry! SOCKPUPPETRY! SOCKPUPPETRY!!!!!" on less than substantial basis leads me to have some doubt about how much discrimination would actually be applied in practice. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for enforcement, I didn't put anything down yet, but I would advocate at least 2 warnings first. It would not take much to persuade a genuinely new user to edit and learn the ropes in a different, less hostile, part of Wikipedia. If they still persisted in editing after said warnings, I would have my doubts as to their motivations for being here (after 2 warnings, the blocking curve to indefinite would be steep, or quick, rather). Thanks again for your comment, R. Baley (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Would help stamp out puppetry. John Smith's (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support sounds good, would help with the socks, easy to implement. Odd how support/oppose is divinding up, no? Looks like some people don't want to lose G33 and his sock army from their side :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: