User talk:Giovanni33

File:Animalibrí.gif

This is the Talk page for discussing changes by Giovanni33
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and give comments that start a new topic ==A Descriptive Header==, placing them at the bottom of the page. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia. You're encouraged to create an account and look at the Tutorial, but feel free to just jump in and be bold, if you don't have any frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Wikiquette, which means above all assume good faith and be nice, and bear in mind what Wikipedia is not.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Chang/Halliday reviews

Hey Giovanni, I'd be happy to send you the reviews of the book I found. Your Wiki e-mail is not enabled but mine is, so do you want to just send me an e-mail and that I'll write back at whatever address you prefer? I have to send them as attachments.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Thanks!Giovanni33 19:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

New Job?

If anything, I'd have access to WP headquarters around the block:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/10/BU69SNMQ2.DTL&tsp=1

Yes, I might actually apply, if they have any openings. I'd even be willing to take a pay cut.heheGiovanni33 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Christianity by country

Please join the ongoing dispute in the Christianity by country article, it is important for us to hear new opinions and to resolve the dispute. Andreyx109 10:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's closed

The above-linked arbitration case has closed. John Smith's and you are subject to identical editing restrictions for one year. You are both limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should either of you exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, you may be blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Need to shorten your conversations

I just looked over your Arbcom ruling where you were fortunatly not banned, and I have got to say, you really need to cut down on how much you write. I often go back reading my edits and delete the nonessential stuff. If you edit more viciously your comments, more people will listen to you. After one paragraph, people lose interest (I have the same problem of writing to much too BTW). Travb (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus, please archive your talk page. Thanks. Travb (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. They are prodigious and flowerly plants that could use a lot of trimming, but this humble gardener prefers to let them grow wild. I hope not too many have gotten lost in the weeds as they venture through. hehe If someone knows how to archive my talk page, I'd be grateful.Giovanni33 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving is easy, you simply create a new page User talk:Giovanni33/Archive 66 (for example). Then cut and paste the above to the new User talk:Giovanni33/Archive 66. But off course, the numbers should be sequental (in order).

I added the {{archive-nav|11}} at the top of all three of your pages. (the number that you put in the template is the number of the archive.

When you are ready to make an archive, you can go to archive 3, then click on the red link to create archive 4.

I liked your gardener analogy. Travb (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

===WikiPediaVision:Watch Realtime Wikipedia Edits===‏

Interesting new site:

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/10/wikipediavision.html Giovanni33 01:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of revert limitation

You have violated the restriction placed on you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's#Giovanni33 restricted. This revert was your first, and this was your second; as they were within a week, it violated the conditions. Please undo your latest revert as soon as possible, and I'll leave this as a warning; if it happens again, you will most likely be blocked in accordance with the enforcement mechanism. Thanks, Picaroon (t) 01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gio, I left a note on Picaroon's page about this asking for leniency toward both you and John (who also technically violated his ArbCom conditions) but agree that you should revert yourself if you are still online. I think we're really close to a consensus on this and we can hammer out the last issues on the talk page. I can make any necessary changes so neither you or John have to violate your rv restrictions.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd gladly self revert but it may be impractical now since there have been other edits since my last edit. Thanks for the warning. I think John Smith needs an equal warning since he did the same thing, before I did, and he seems to be under the impression and doing partial reverts, if he combines them with making other changes doesnt count as a revert.Giovanni33 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not impractical - you can revert to the earlier version after I made my edit. I'm sure Picaroon wouldn't mind that for the moment as a sign of good faith from you. Also you reverted more than just the once when you restored the content on Dr Gao and Kaz Ross here - please don't imply I am somehow the cause of this. The warning is not optional. Either you should revert back or you may get blocked - you can't say "thanks for the warning now let's pretend I never broke my revert parole". John Smith's 20:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If I revert back I'm undoing several other edits from other editors in the process. Hence it not practicable. Lets just focus on the content on the talk page and come to some measure of consensus on the issues. I'm willing to compromise as I've stated there already. Also, by your logic you'd have to self revert your changes after I did, since you violated the terms by 2 reversions within a week.Giovanni33 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:36, 11/4/2007

A note

Hey Giovanni, just wanted to let you know that I'm taking a (hopefully) lengthy wikibreak and therefore a break from our discussion at the Mao: The Unknown Story article, among other things. I think the main issues there are fairly well resolved at this point and hope that you agree. In spite of everything I think we made some good improvements to the article, which is obviously cool.

You're a smart editor with a lot to contribute at Wikipedia--maybe just avoid the wiki-drama for awhile, i.e. work on some less controversial shit! I don't want to see you get in trouble after your ArbCom case so my advice (for whatever it's worth) is to keep your head down/take the 1RR thing to heart. You don't need to revert frequently (or even at all) in order to make your presence felt, believe me. I'll be generally off-wiki for awhile but I'm sure I'll see you around here eventually, peace!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bigtimepeace. I agree with you we did make major needed improvements. Thanks for all your help. I'm actually on a bit of a wikibreak right now myself. And, I'll be camping this weekend.Giovanni33 21:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jung Chang

I would appreciate a reponse to the points I raised here - thank you. John Smith's (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni if you stop your weekly revert then no one needs to be warned. It would help if you state clearly on the talk page how many people make a consensus, or whether we all need to agree on something to be that. John Smith's (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous44/No.91

I liked your addition to User:Anonymous44#NPA, you made a good summary of his technique. Jbowler (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC) John Bowler

This was a misundertanding, the guy meant to post this to User:GabrielF. :) Have a nice day, anyway! --Anonymous44 (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I meant your, Giovanni33's, comment, although I admit it is unclear from Anonymous44's talk page whether you were directing it at GabrielF or Anonymous44. It just seemed to fit Anonymous44's actions so well. 74.32.171.56 (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC) John Bowler

RfC on Jung Chang

I have opened one up to gain further comments on the matter under dispute on the talk page. I hope you will take part rather than revert on Monday. John Smith's (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article on Wikipedia

A friend brought this to my attention. Its an interesting article, to say the least: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/Giovanni33 (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The gifts of the Holiday Season

Thought I'd share this story. So, when asked by family and friends what I want for Xmas (Christ Myth), and/or my birthday which is very close by, I simply said, "make a donation to a worthy charity in my name!" Low and behold, someone thinks Wikipedia to be that worthy charity of choice! Oh, of course, they all know I am a proud Wikipedian, but most do not approve of my being a wikiholic. These enablers!

Payment Details

Transaction ID: 7G051202NU059935G Item Price: $150.00 USD Total: $150.00 USD Order Description: One-time donation Item/Product Number: DONATE The following options were included with this payment: Anonymity: public Comment: This gift is giving on behalf of Gio N. Buyer: T. Perkins

It may take a few moments for this transaction to appear in the Recent Activity list on your Account Overview. Business Information Business: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Contact E-Mail: donation@wikipedia.org

Giovanni33 (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

24 hour block

For "fail[ing] to discuss a content reversion" at New antisemitism, you have been blocked for 24 hours in line with the ArbCom decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. I discussed this block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of Giovanni for ArbCom enforcement. When your block expires, you are welcome to contribute productively, but remember to adhere to the restrictions given by the ArbCom. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Opps, I just used the edit summary to state my reasons, since there was no discussion about the change. Who reported me to the enforcement board anyway? A simple note to me would have sufficed for me to discuss this on the talk page. Ironically, now I cant discuss it, until after my block expires.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Mongo. I look forward to a positive, productive, cooperative year with you as a fellow wikipedian--and many more years to come!Giovanni33 (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Condensing comments

Hi. You gotta learn to better condense comments. Much better. Too often I noticed you advancing a point with tenfold the words needed to put it across. And the result, on Wikipedia, is that few people bother reading the entire thing closely. Regards, El_C 10:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and that is true.Giovanni33 (talk)

Anytime. So, for noticeboards, the ideal report is: sentence-or-two, diff; sentence-or-two, diff; etc. El_C 11:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Past conflicts

Hello Giovanni, I have been most impressed with the level-headed manner in which you have been able to continue to interact with Raggz, and I hope that you are able to step back from your previous conflict with John Smith (although it appears to have been a very contentious relationship) to continue to focus your comments on the talk:allegations of state terrorism commited by the US page to specifics about the content of the article in question and do not feed the trolls by delving into past conflicts. This may be a very difficult thing that I am asking because John appears to know how to press your buttons, but I hope that you are able to step above his actions. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, of course. I'll take the high road and refuse to take the bait. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Giovanni, thanks for the barnstar and kind note on my talk page. I'm not really interested in adminship at this time (I need to be contributing here less, not more, unfortunately) but appreciate the complement. Maybe some day but not anytime soon I think. I also wanted to let you know that I noticed John Smith's filed a report about you at the Arbitration Enforcement Board for 1RR violation. He neglected to notify you (though I would not necessarily read anything into that) so I figured I'd drop you a note. I'm also going to leave a comment over there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea. But I went there and left a note in my defense, too (and edit conflicted with your note). Its unfortunate that JohnSmiths finds it worth his time to constantly try to get me in some kind of trouble, esp. over something as meaningless as this that does nothing but further bad will. Very petty.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a note with John on his talk page as well. You might be blocked because I think that can be construed as technically a violation, but it was quite silly to report it days after the fact. I would enjoin you though to be very careful with your reverting. For example that second edit really was not that important and easily could have waited a couple more days, or you could have discussed it on talk and someone else might have taken up your cause (maybe you did - I don't even remember). Because you have a pretty bad track record on 3RR and are under an ArbCom restriction, admins are probably not going to look kindly on any editing that even brushes up against the 1RR border. That doesn't mean John should have reported you, however it is your responsibility to scrupulously avoid reverting more than once a week so there is no basis for a report in the first place.

I really think you and John need to just try to avoid each other completely and not try to get one another in trouble at all (you reported John to ANI a few days ago which was definitely ill-advised I think since nothing good could have come of it and it basically just resulted in John reporting you to an admin and then both of you being warned by said admin). Regardless of the specifics of whatever is going on now or in the future, any time this dispute gets brought up on ANI or to admins or whatever both of you end up looking bad (I know the details of your past dispute and even I don't really care about the specifics this time around - instead one just gets a general impression of being annoyed). I'm wondering if it would be possible for the two of you to come to some sort of agreement where you permanently disengage from one another. Work on different articles, or overlap on some articles but don't interact with one another, etc. If you would be interested in something like that maybe myself or some other third party could try to help broker an informal agreement that would avoid taking this thing back to ArbCom. Let me know what you think and then maybe I can ask John about it and see how he feels.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I would certainly support such a sensible proposition, which I would think would come naturally by simply exercising common sense judgment, i.e. you not follow around an editor you constantly bicker with, but do the very opposite, avoid, and disengage. That is why I had such a problem with JohnSmith showing up on the Allegations page only to start the usual bickering (whatever his intentions were, this choice was poor judgment). I asked him several times why he was doing that and he just continued to ignore that point, and argue. If something can be put in placed formally that codified this commons sense practice, I'd be all for it. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to work something up on my talk page and maybe we can discuss it there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started something on my talk page and am inviting you and John over there to discuss further. Let's see what happens.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah -- word on the barnstar. It's my first, and much appreciated. I've never gone in for the "awards and councils" thing (neither in real-life nor here), so honestly i'm not sure what to do with it -- post it on my user page? I think that's probably what i'll do, and it brings a smile to me, now, seeing that i have one to match the forty- or fifty-odd posted on other user-pages. Thanks again -- Stone put to sky (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Negotiatin'

Hi Gio, I did not edit yesterday but I've continued the discussion with a new thread on my talk page so take a look when you get a chance.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Read Wikipedia:Harassment. If you continue to wikistalk me, this will be reported.Ultramarine (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Quote

Regarding your first quote from Jimbo Wales about every person on the planet etc. it is well to remember that the majority of people on Earth have never made a telephone call.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

True, and yes, we should keep in mind the upside down nature of the world economic arrangements, which cry out for revolution.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello there. I see you have been adding external links to a few Israel-related articles with the edit summary "crtical bbc article". However, the article you linked to is not a BBC article; it is a BBS article. I hope this was a genuine mistake, and not an attempt to mislead editors into trusting the source you linked to. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a genuine mistake. It thought it was from the BBC. Still, its a good external link. I'll make the correction if you havn't already. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk)

can you remove this article from all the places you have inserted it ? it is not a WP:RS source and it is far from NPOV. Zeq (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

External links sections need not be NPOV. They in fact can have articles that do a good job at a particular POV. Why do you say its not a reliable source?Giovanni33 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism and the United States

Hi!

• You raised an objection and have reverted the edit of User:Ultramarine here. While I cannot speak for the whole edit what you said on the article page does consern me, "The fact is that it is true that Ultramarine introduced various things that have been rejected by all participating editors on the talk page discussing its merits or lackthereof several times now. What he does is wait a week, and insert it again, only to be reverted, and then a new discussion cycle starts over again."[1] Saying this on article page does not WP:AGF for the editor referenced. I do not know the whole history between you, Ultramarine, and other editors which are participating in editing this politically charged article; Still, please try to show good faith and not make it our POV against his POV. He is not WP:SPA but an establsihed editor with many many edits, same like you. Both of you like to edit political articles so you know what entails in the process of compromise and consensus building.
• I have looked at the edit before you reverted it and I see it as a good WP:NPOV edit, but having a consensus for the edit is another story. What I feel is being done against WP:NPOV is the absolute support for Noam Chomsky. He is not the Panacea nor The Final Solution on all world state affairs, and his statemnts and enterpertations do not resound without criticism as the Holy Truth! There needs to be a counter point and some creative criticism of his political thoughts in the article to preserve NPOV and to avoid making the article look baised against America. We may agree with American politics and goverment or not, but Wikipedia is not the place to practice anti-Americanism. I would like to recommend that in the spirit of community colaboration and to preserve the NPOV of the article that you reinsert the part of the edit that criticizes Noam Chomsky. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

anti-Americanism

You want to come over and give us a hand? Could use a few knowledgable editors. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks, I'd love to when I get the chance. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert parole broken - brought to noticeboard

Giovanni, I have reported you to the arbitration noticeboard. You will have the opportunity to self-revert - please take a look here. John Smith's (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been temporarily protected to allow you to respond. John Smith's (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked 72 hours. See [2]. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for sock puppetry overturned--false identity

I have replaced your temporary block with an indefinite block, due to the sock puppetry evidenced at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers. Feel free to provide an explanation if you wish for me or another administrator to consider an unblock request. Jehochman ^Talk 03:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Giovanni33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hmm interesting, even plausible at first glance, but quite wrong. I have kept my word not to engage in any socket-puppetry. If you suspected that, the appropriate thing would be to raise it on ANI or a Rfc. Some consensus is standard before indef blocking long term established editors. esp. on such shaky grounds. Using my years old block log doesn't cut it. Nor does your speculations about "coincidence." Even assuming that the other editors in question are in the area, the Bay Area is a big place and there are many people here with similar views. That is no surprise, and not too much of a coincidence. But in any case your speculation that happens to be mistaken. I'll assume good faith here, but other viewers may look at this and see that I'm being blocked right before my arb com block is set to expire to keep me from making any arguments in defense of the article, above, that has been hurriedly under attack, through massive deletions, following blocks of editors active on the page of similar POV, i.e. non-deletionists. I won't say there is politics at play here but it sure looks like a desperate attempt to delete the article in whole, and POV push by skipping consensus or creating a false one through the elimination of editors who get in the way. But I'm no fan of conspiracy theories...Still, this is a tactic used when one can not appeal to rational arguments. I'll just say its a coincidence, that all this is happening at the same time, since I will assume good faith that that you are simply honestly mistaken, and have simply excercised rather poor judgment with the use of your admin tools.

Decline reason:

You have blown yet another chance. You've been caught sockpuppeting, been warned, done it again, been warned, done it again, etc. No. Your disruptions are no longer welcome. — Jmlk17 05:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Caught? Where? Been warned? Where? This comes out of the blue for me. The last time there was any socket puppet bussiness was over a year ago! Please get your facts straight. This is an attempt to get rid of me so they can get rid of the article I've been working to bring to featured status. This bogus railroad attempt won't stand.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just look at your massive block log for one. There is no conspiracy, there is not one against you, there is only a block for sockpuppetry that you have done... again. Jmlk17 05:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, do look at the block log. Look at it very carefully. Look at the dates. And, look at the many unblocks, that were overturned, nullifying false blocks. When you look at it carefully you will see its not so 'massive" as it looks like at first glance, not to mention rather ancient history by wiki standards. There is no proven, established socketpuppetry, either. Any close investigation will prove this.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All I see is you violating 3RR again and again and again and somehow getting away with it. You've been blocked numerous times for 3RR (which I personally would indef this account for as it is), and several issues with Arbcom concerning your sockpuppet habits. You seem to be able to dance along a thin line and continue to do so, and it amazes me how long it has gone on for until now. Jmlk17 05:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite telling that 'that is all you see." Exactly my point. You said it, not me. This is a case of appearance of seeing what you want to see instead of the actual reality. You look up and think the Sun is moving, when its not. All I can say is go back and look again carefully, as a scientist would. Then looking at the actual evidence, you will, if you have open eyes, see what I'm talking about. I do have hope in you, my fellow wikipedian. Before you stands an innocent and valuable editor to the project. I say "bring me the body!" (Habeas corpus). If this nonsense persists, I will mount a vigorous defense on my behalf and under no circumstances will this unjust block stand.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply look at the link provided by Jehochman above. You've been blocked for this before, and in your block log even promised to never sockpuppet again. You're done. You violated the policies again and again. Jmlk17 05:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did look. The report is inconclusive. Its based on speculations and "coincidence.' Asserting a falsehood factually, does not make it a fact. Contradiction is not refutation. Is your method "truth by proclamation?" Where is the evidence? The only violations here are those of the process that is not being followed in my case. I have no socket puppets, and I have violated no WP policies.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mount away. Jmlk17 05:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I can't post on the article talk page State terrorism and the United States for a few days, due to the above, I'll post here. I also wish to say I protest the massive deletions of valid source material that was done without consensus. I stand in solidarity with the other long term editors there who are opposing this with a protest reversion, and I stand with the editor(s) (I'm not sure if there are more than one) who have been blocked by the admin pushing the changes to the article. I refer to this most interesting account found here that points to something very fishing going on with admin corruption:[3]Giovanni33 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude take a break..:) Go read some shit. You cannot win, and will just waste time going against the grain. They want to slash the article, they can do it. Do not try fighting with them because it will just get you blocked again and again. You know the subject is a political hot potato, right? So it is more how the world wants to see America and not about NPOV or no censorship and stuff like that. Try to edit some other articles and enjoy the wiki. Maybe the consensus will change to keep the article in a longer version, but I doubt it will stick, because it is not the the desired norm. So instead of wasting time warring, go edit something else and let them fight among themselves. If someone not interested in listening no matter what and how you tell them will not come to a logical understanding. Anyway, why they doing this? To prevent attack on wikipedia by pov pushers who just want it to be deleted. So the rational to tone the article has merit. Don't feel bad, the world is not blind, cannot white wash American arogance no matter how much detergent you use..:) Igor Berger (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but admins are not immune from following policy per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANOT#IMMUNEGiovanni33 (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, this place is a mess! Even admins are scared of Trolls. So chill a bit and let's find a way to deal with this madnes. Igor Berger (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm a bit mad about things but not emotional. Sometimes it hard to keep ones faith in the project when one sees these problems but its part of the nature of the beast, I guess. In the big picture these things get corrected. The wheel of justice sometimes turns very slowly..heheGiovanni33 (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha! go hunt some trolls, and have a good time..:) Igor Berger (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See ANI report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_abusing_his_powers_in_content_dispute Please comment. Thank you.Supergreenred (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I am following this with interest, but unfortunately, per above, I am unable to comment on ANI. I do support you. You might also find this intresting: [4] It looks like almost the same thing they did with you--also an admin who is edit warring and blocking his opponent.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye Gio!

I always enjoyed your debates. I will miss you! BTW, this edit sort of gives you away. ^^James^^ (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually James - having edited with the guy I would be tempted to do the same - try it and see for yourself! Sophia 07:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No thanks! Ha ha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ^^James^^ (talk • contribs) 07:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't find that too interesting. I have seen the exact words many times from many editors when they get pestered by someone, leaving them sanctimonious warnings, etc. So while John can be very annoying to me, I'm afraid I'm not the only one he happened to annoy, obviously. If I were to have a socket-puppet, I'd be a little smarter, and build one up by editing different article, not agreeing with me, etc. Come on, give me more credit.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to, but I've seen much. Sigh. Damn shame really. ^^James^^ (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gio, I get lost in all the selective speculation but am sorry to see you go. Anything that gives a clear field to a certain editor is bound to be bad for the project. I've stopped wasting my time as the dominant White US POV is impossible to balance in some areas - go use your time elsewhere and enjoy your "retirement"! Sophia 07:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sophia. Nice to see you again. Its been a while. No need to be sorry to see me go because I have not left, and do not intend to. I have confidence in WP and I know there are good admins who will review this and see the error rectified, even if you are quite right about the dominant systematic conservative bias most evident now. I may not be able to balance it but reason overpowers irrational jingoism. They know that which is why they have to rely on lies and underhanded tactics, perverting the rules and assassinating their ideological opponents. That viciousness is a true sign of both strategic weakness plus fear.

I do hope this is not going to take protected struggle but I am prepared and capable to draw attention to this injustice, a rather systematic targeting against progressive editors, and whitewashing articles that lay bare uncomfortable truths. So no, I'm not going anywhere, rather I'm bringing taking struggle higher. If they pick up a rock to throw, I make them drop it on their feet. I have some good contacts in the media but I want to see how this plays out, and feel WP can correct itself, from abuses of process.

In any case, it's interesting to see how they attacked the article in a very organized way. Impressive as it is shameful, but it only shows that they are scared of any effective opponent who must be silenced. Well I intend to only get louder and expand the exposure--whatever it takes to move heaven and earth! Those who rely on lies are inherently weak and their bites are those of paper tigers. Their aggressive attacks indicates their being scared, not strong. We shall see where this goes in the longer term. There is no way this will stand upon closer inspection, and the more they try to silence me, the more it will backfire. Giovanni33 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This account was blocked based on lies, but the truth prevailed

The tag on my user page page, inserted by an ideological opponent that says, "This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms...," is a lie. The user checks used as a basis for this unjust and unilateral action in fact confirms no connection. It says 'inconclusive" and notes all the accounts are even from different ISP's. Checking the contribution histories shows many of these editors the various accounts are from different ISP's and the geographical locations are 5 hours apart. I note that some of these accounts have edited a the same time, including the same time I've editing. 5 hours is not close in a "narrow area,' either. That is almost the difference between SF and LA.

But, all the facts that don't fit the preconceived conclusion are conveniently rationalized with further negative speculation conforming to the confirmation bias of the method, even if it violates logical principals such as Occams Razor. Therefore alternative explanations are never even considered, and the WP principal of assuming good faith is turned upside down. Could it be possible that are other editors who share the same POV and interests in editing, and who happen to also live in CA? I would never have thought! But, no, I am not be declared guilty unless proven innocent. Notice the blocking admin saying exactly this: one needs refuting evidence that they are not the same as me, instead of the other way around, despite him making the positive claim and having the burden of proof. I am expected to prove a negative! It rests on a major faulty assumption, which can easily be refuted. By this absurd standard anyone can get indef blocked: all that is takes is for someone to edit with a similar POV, who lives near your area--even 5 hours away, even if editing at the same time. Even if you are an established editor. Is this how low standard have dropped for banning established editors? If so WP has discarded god faith, due process, and one has arbitrary power to indef block the person you want to get rid of, without any discussion, based on faulty assumptions and logic. This is a grave injustice with implications far beyond this account. Indeed it has a brutalizing effect, conveying the message that it is acceptable to single out editors and ban them without discussion, and without sound evidence. I know WP is not a democracy, but neither is it fascism!

I have little doubt about the reactionary nature behind this obviously politically motivated attack. The same abusive admins and zealous POV warrior are going after all editors who oppose their POV, while they do their best to delete well referenced material that expresses a POV they don't like; attacking the editors who supply this material goes hand in hand with deleting the material. They say they want to improve the article, but their actions speak otherwise: after deleting most of the best sections, best sources, then nominate it for AfD, and all vote to Delete. This move to block me comes at the exact right time. If the DUCK test is used to block me, then for sure it can be used to come to the conclusion I have about the nature of these attacks on the article and its best editors. The difference is that this low standard is not being used to make indef blocks, esp. without even raising the question on ANI for discussion. This is an example of the ugly side of WP, where there is not just systematic bias but outright attempts to censor both material and kick out editors who to not pass the Political Litmus Test.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that false tag from my user page.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is plainly unjust and I contest this block in the strongest possible terms. Where is the strong community consensus that the guideline stipulates as a requirement for indef. blocking an established editor, being done here based on faulty assumptions, and no hard evidence? Guidelines state that indef blocks of established users "should never be enacted even based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." I feel they are pushing a vendetta and have no interest in the truth of the matter or the evidence. I'm looking for an admin who is not in this camp. To act on the basis of a belief requires at a minimum that the actor be willing to review, consider and look at all the evidence offered, esp. from the side of the accused--NOT simply accepting the conclusions and assumptions of the accuser, which is what the other admin did. The assumptions were swallowed whole, without critical thinking. Its disturbing. Otherwise, what we have is old fashioned prejudice at work here, based on a very old block log and socket-puppetry years ago, still haunting me. That is unfair. Look at the current basis and assumptions being used to support this drastic action to shut down a good editor's account. "Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block", and I have not seen any widespread support. By the logic used to support this block, all I have to do is create an account, follow you around, adopt your vernacular, and support your POV, then someone can claim "socketpuppets!" It is too easy, hence do not unilaterally block on such flimsy grounds. An admin can, but is that justice? That there are other users who simply share a similar POV is no crime. To say I am connected to them, or they are one in the same, is, but then there should be solid evidence, not negative, bad-faith speculations, prompted by people who edit war with me over content disputes.

Giovanni33 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have posted to WP:AN regarding your request to make sure an uninvolved administrator attends to this promptly. Jehochman ^Talk 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hope that an admin will look at the evidence and not be predjudiced by other factors such as my past block log. I have shown I have changed and that should not be held against me. I have not nor ever will return to socket-puppetry. Perhaps we should contact the fellow who also suffered this unfortunate and mistaken ban? I feel bad for him. He raises some very valid points here in this rather interesting published mIRC chat:[5]Giovanni33 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33, I feel very strongly that people need to have a chance to escape their past, but you were blocked by Rlevse just three days ago for violating arbitration sanctions, so I have doubts. I'd like to put you in touch with a Checkuser to discuss this matter further, and I will happily abide by whatever opinion they render. Maybe you could email User:Alison, User:Lar or User:Thatcher to explain things? Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So do I, but in practice is not happening. The block by Rlevse per arbcom sanctions I do not contest, but its not related to this matter: I'm on a one revert a week stipulation. I did an accidental partial revert within 5 days. It was my mistake and I accepted responsibility. I served my time and would have been more careful proceeding. I did not make a fuss or protest it. I accepted it, even though I thought it was not necessary and offered to self revert, with explanation. So what does it have to do with this block, converting that 72 hour block into an indef. one right before the other was set to expire, and with me not doing anything else at all in the meanwhile? There is no connection that I can fathom except that it continues to silence me at a critical time that my content opponents need to push in their POV driven deletionist agenda. Wikipedia is being manipulated by special interest groups, and I feel I am just one of their victims. It is even possible that there are other accounts purposely created to set up precisely this, to clear the field of the thorns in their sides. It essentially comes down to being guilty of sharing the same political outlook and living in the Bay Area as other editors. That is nothing bad in and of itself, and that is all that has been established.

I was promised, back in the day, and I specifically requested-- and was granted--the condition that if anyone thinks I have socketpuppets to present that case to me and I would fully cooperate in making assurances to any admin that it was not me, and address any legitimate concerns from such inferences and possibilities to their satisfaction; that I'd be given an assumption of good faith moving forward basically. I feel this was not done at all. Maybe the admin who was most familiar with that past, Musical Linguist, can come out of retirement and apply her savvy linguistic skills, as she did last time? We have texts to compare, and she was an expert at doing so. It is only for the good of the project that I care about which makes me passionate about this matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean: "Seems like a valid block. The history of sockpuppetry and extensive block log shows that he has clearly been using socks before. Nakon 01:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)" The support of this block is predicated on a reference to the past, and not on its own merits. Thus, I am not escaping my past but my past is being used to support a verdict in the present, without a critical examination of the contemporary and thus relevant evidence its based on (and the underlying assumptions). Now here ais an editor who is using critical thinking, questioning the actual assumptions that the block is resting on. I see no good answers to his questions.[6] Reason thus dictates that this was an honest mistake. I will hold no ill-will.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman ^Talk 02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jehochman. I am not bitter but appreciative. To show good faith I will not edit that article where there are account that are suspected as possible socketpuppets, editing at the same time as I had originally stated (unless those accounts are no longer editing there). I do hope to get some consensus and resolution so I don't have a black cloud hanging over my head. Thank you again.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I regret the inconvenience. Jehochman ^Talk 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to make an edit but looks like the auto-block is kicking in...Giovanni33 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still de-facto blocked.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate that thing. Let me look for it. Jehochman ^Talk 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gio Sand Box

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TrulyBlue (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To create a Sandbox try editing User:Giovanni33/Sandbox which will create a sandbox for you. You will see a link to the subject of Wikipedia:Subpages. Good luck, and have fun. TrulyBlue (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That is what I was trying to do. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I already moved the page into your userspace per WP:BOLD, as if someone was patrolling CSDs it may have been deleted. Feel free to rename it, e.g., under /Sandbox or whatever. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I now have it in the proper place, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giovanni33/Sandbox.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regards

Hey Gio, not sure if you remember running into me on a few fairly contentious articles in the past or not, but I actually wanted to lend some sort of support to you. We certainly don't always agree, and we've probably both stepped over the line at some point here, but I do believe it is obvious that you have made HUGE strides in correcting what others have pointed out to be issues/problem. No one is perfect, but you are at least making an effort. Good on you, and good luck! Arkon (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope to see you around in the future--in both contentious and 'happy' articles.:) The project could use more wiki-love, transcending political differences.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine

I've been attempting to work on criticisms of capitalism but have run into the same headache with User:Ultramarine. In the meantime I've started an early conflict resolution. I know you also have experience with this editor, so your input would be much appreciated. Uwmad (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, lots of editors actually have issues (and headaches) from this users tententatious editing behaviors. I'll be happy to look and comment when I get a chance. I have also worked on that article, btw.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to get administrators to take a look at him? His edits on criticisms of capitalism and allegations of state terrorism by the united states are clearly done in bad faith. Uwmad (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can start a Rfc on the user, and start compiling evidence of patterns of his systematic abuse of editing here. There is a long pattern, and many editors can share their own experience. This will make it clear there is a problem.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will start looking into this and start compiling patterns from the Criticism of capitalism page. I really want to contribute to that page but find it impossible given the way Ultramarine makes it inhospitable. I've already started early resolution with WP:Wikiquette... could you possibly write something there since I've mentioned you as a possible interested party. Thanks for helping out. Uwmad (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I think this is a really bad place for people to congregate and discuss plans for getting even with other users. If you have a grievance, please seek help from an uninvolved administrator or editor before starting any requests for comment. You folks are part of a big battle which is disruptive, and in my opinion, you need to stop right away. Giovanni33, I unblocked you so you could write articles, not fight battles. Jehochman ^Talk 03:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not interested in fighting any battles, except to improve the article I've invested so much time into, trying to get it up to FA status. As you can see I've been making progress towards these ends on the articles talk page. Regarding Ultramarine, this is not a case of "getting even," but of a serious long term behavior problem that has negatively impacted the project for some times now. I do think that an uninvolved admin needs to take a look at that, but also that those who have experience with the problem also comment. But, I agree with you Jehochman. I hope my continued edits will bear this out in practice.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to come off as getting even with someone. I've just been trying to work on a page and have been finding it extremely difficult due to an editor's conduct. I was just wondering what recourse there is such that an outside party can take a look at the editor's conduct. Would you be willing to take a look? Uwmad (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I could take a look. Can you please not take a combative us-versus them stance around this or any other troubled article? If the user is problematic, I will definitely do something to help improve the situation. Jehochman ^Talk 04:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I should clarify that I'm new to all of this and that I didn't mean to do anything out of line. This editor had become unbearable, so I asked Giovanni because he was one of the only other people editing on the article. I'm really just interested what other people think about this. Sorry if I caused any trouble for Giovanni. Uwmad (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I can show you strategies for resolving your concerns. One good idea, I just posted. [7] Get outside input. There are places on Wikipedia where you can get a number of reasonable, uninvolved editors to review your dispute and help decide the matter. If you are being reasonable and the other person is not, this process is likely to produce the result you seek. The NPOV noticeboard may be of use. Jehochman ^Talk 04:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted on your talk page. Thank you for your help. Uwmad (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine (2)

Gio, if you think Ultramarine is edit-warring you should probably raise it on ANI as he hasn't broken 3RR according to the reviewing admin (nor from what I can see). Although gaming the system can result in a block I think the reverts need to be closer together than what they are in this case. Also from what I can see his arb-comm case only refers to one article so that won't apply in this case. I have also asked him to bring any allegations on you on the correct page rather than on the 3RR page. John Smith's (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That is reasonable, although there it's a grey area which board it should be brought to. Chronic edit warring with 3 reverts, followed by 3 reverts separated by a week, only to continue following the same pattern seems to be within the spirit of what the 3RR is set up to stop. The arbcom ruling, I was not sure about. Sure it was about that particular article, but the proscriptions did not mention 'sterile edit warring" is enforceable only to that one article. I would say that the same applies to any article where we see the same pattern.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I haven't seen an example where an editor was blocked for doing that under 3RR. Reverting 4 times in 24 hours + x minutes, yes. But not reverting 3 times followed by a week's gap. As for the arb-comm, I think it's supposed to refer to the article. That's why it refers to the article name in findings of fact and then mentions working together to make "a consensus version" under the remedy. And I wouldn't keep complaining on the 3RR board - the admin made up his mind on 3RR. John Smith's (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA warning

[8] and [9] look like part of a sequence of personal attacks to me. Please be more careful with your language. As the page says Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. If you truely believe that an editor is being disruptive, you should be taking it up on ANI or elsewhere. If you don't, don't put such remarks onto the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone failing to WP:AGF, perhaps Connolley can try to read our policies before waving sticks. There is clearly no NPA violation in either dif. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those don't look anything close to personal attacks, especially not the ones you are keen on making. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I never make personal attacks. They are illogical. I am commenting about your editing behavior on the article, which has been, objectively, disruptive to progress. Mass blanking of material prior to any discussion is counter productive, i.e. disruptive. Nothing personal there, its a criticism of what I consider very poor editing behavior for this article esp.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User WMC request for Arbcomm

After reviewing the history of User: William M. Connolley, and reading that Arbcomm asks to bring all requests for removal of adminship to them directly, I have decided to begin the process. Due to the fact that he is an admin, and the misconduct examples are so spread out, I have put it in a sandbox, User:HooperBandP/Sandbox4, so that all examples can be compiled by community and Arbcomm's time will not be waisted. All parties are welcome to say their piece there and it will be sent to arbcomm when ready, or to add examples to speed the process. Hooper (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have added your name to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:William_M._Connolley as you seem to have knowledge of the situation. Feel free to comment. Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism/marxism

You wrote extensively in a discussion on marxism and Marxism. I am wondering if you could possibly recommend some reading for myself, some one just wading into the pool. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. I was trying to think of some favorite books, but with a topic this big, its hard to find one. Some are good in some respect but confusing and lacking on other respects that do not do justice to Marx. For me, I started with the Manifesto (still quite impressively condensed and I still get insight every time I read it), but then did the hard work of reading all classics written by Marx and Engles himself. A quote from Marx himself is apropos here: "There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits." Recently I decided to take a look at wikipedia's article, historical materialism. I made some improvements there last month, and now it does a decent job at explaining the basics of it (although I intend to go back to fix it up and add references in later, etc). But that might be a good place to start. Here are some links, too:

• http://www.cla.purdue.edu/English/theory/marxism/

  http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/intros.html

  http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/CURRIC/soc/MARX/introM.htm

  http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have. Ciao.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a Request for Arbitration involving you. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Giovanni33.Ultramarine (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Giovanni. I did a quick word check on your evidence and it's a lot. The offical limit is 1000 words and you've written about 3800. Going over by so much is not on - you did that last time and were warned to cut it down. You should know better. John Smith's (talk)

I actually tried to keep it down by not covering everything. Ultramarine's and Merzbow's sections are each larger than mine, and together maybe 4 times as large, but you think I should cut mine down, still?Giovanni33 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that Merzbow seems to know how this "remote desktop" system works, and lives in the same city as you. The most damning similarities exist between Merzbow and the 3rd party. I think you should submit the information possibly to SSP, or request a CU on Merzbow. There was recently a case on the AN/I board in which one person was attempting to set the other up via a "fake sockpuppet" --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I found another interesting similarity, though I have to agree it is a case of "confirmation bias." Both Merzbow and Supergreenred, use {{user|USERNAME}} when linking to user pages. I have not noticed you doing this, as you seem to generally not link to user names at all. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is plausible, but I did not want to make the accusation. The ironic thing is Merzbow is now agreeing with me--we are in agreement--that the third-party in question is an impersonator. Unfortunately, he is not willing to extend to me the same good faith in that he insists it must be me, instead of simply impersonating me, while I grant him the possibility that its not him, just impersonating him (or a case of confirmation bias, and co-incidence). Even though there is evidence of copying both ways, Merzbow wants it both ways, depending on who he wants to accuse. As what really is going on, a user check might help. From what I've seen, though, this won't work due to political reasons. I'm still conducting research myself and am confident I can get to the bottom of it, or at least prove beyond a reasonable doubt my innocence but I'm becoming less confident that truth even matters in my case, or at least that it matters more than politics. We shall see.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Observing Supergreenred's edits and Merzbow, it seems they have never overlapped in editing. I know you may not want to make an accusation, but this seems more compelling then the overlapping that exists between you and those other users, which Merzbow alleges would have been planned. All times are in server time. At the least it should presented to show that if Merzbow's explanations and confirmation bias are accepted, that it only shows he is more likely Supergreenred then you.

• April 13th
  • Merzbow
    • 5:35 -> 6:04 (6)
  • Supergreenred
    • 08:05 -> 9:21 (6)
  • Merzbow
    • 18:05 (1)
  • Supergreenred
    • 21:07 -> 22:01 (15)
• April 14th
  • Supergreenred
    • 00:04 -> 00:17 (7)
  • Merzbow
    • 00:29 -> 00:47 (6)
    • 08:04 (1)
  • Supergreenred
    • 09:44 -> 11:22 (14)
  • Merzbow
    • 18:09 -> 23:54 (5)
• April 15th
  • Merzbow:
    • 1:15 -> 1:28
  • Supergreenred
    • 4:56 -> 11:31
  • Merzbow
    • 17:39 -> 22:51
• April 29th
  • Merzbow
    • 3:15 -> 3:19 (3)
  • Supergreenred
    • 5:56 -> 6:02 (2)
  • Merzbow
    • 7:51 -> 22:16 (16)
• April 30th
  • Merzbow
    • 00:01 -> 3:13 (12)
  • Supergreenred
    • 7:00 -> 8:00 (7)
  • Merzbow
    • 18:09 -> 23:47 (17)

Yes, I've noticed that too. Again, I wanted to not adopt the tactics or methods of my accusers, but I suppose this information can be presented to illustrate another way to interpret the evidence, the way I did when I looked and found some identical phrases in the "tables turned" section, which caused Merzbow to react very defensively, more than I had expected. JohnSmith's has been complaining to me and the clerk that my evidence is too large and if I present more he will make a bigger deal about it. Perhaps you should post what you've found.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The other thing I found interesting was this [10] Notice it takes place after Merzbow list's his evidence, one claim of which is that I frequently mistakenly use its vs it's. Yet, afterwards we see Supergreenred make exactly this error in an obvious way on an article that Merzbow frequents, and it just so happens that Merzbow make the very next edit about 10 mins later to demonstrate the point he was making. There is a further contradiction and irony here in that Merzbow is claiming that the account is being used to fake evidence to make it look like him, and not me. Ok, then what about this example? He wants to have it both ways. Faked evidence? Indeed! We have further agreement--even though the evidence being faked, in this case, supports his point/allegations (however cherry picked they are), instead of it being an attempt to make it look like he is SGR (as the linguistic similarities suggest). In fact, by his own logic, since this edit was made after Merzbow presented his its vs it's point, its makes no sense for SRG to then make this obvious edit where Merzbow jumps in right away to trumpet his point and further the accusation--if SGR was out to create evidence against him, and make me look innocent. If anything looks faked, it's this! But Merzbow wants it both ways, even though both sets of circumstances are almost identical. I wonder how he explains it.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Come join the party

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't let Connolley hold thw RfC page hostage

If Connolley decides to erase the RfC, the page is now found here:

[11] Inclusionist (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief, just give it up. Nothing will ever come of your harrassment of WMC. Jtrainor (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not harassment, this is about accountability for admins. They are not above the rules, and should not abuse their tools, as WMC has done on several occasions with impunity.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow accusations of abuse from you of all people are not terribly convincing. Jtrainor (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

From me because it's from me? Ah ha, classical logical fallacy. It is precisely such demonstrated flawed thinking that makes your various comments not terribly convincing.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a fallacy considering you in fact do have a history of abuse. I'm not the one who has been caught socking many many times and been sanctioned by Arbcom. Jtrainor (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It may have occurred years ago, so you are technically correct its in my past, but since I've long given up that behavior its not relevant now (and this is taking place now, not years ago). And since you know this it's still a logical fallacy, but I'll modify it to one of poisoning the well, which is but a special case of argumentum ad hominem.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

socpe of arb com

I cant find anywhere that clearly defines the scope of the arb com. Is it simply Ultra's accusations that you have abused sock puppets or does it also include Ultra's disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editing practices?TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question. Usually it involves any invovled editors conduct. I was going to present that argument, because Ultra's very problematic editing behavior, as I'm sure your aware. However, I decided not to counter with any accusations against anyone else, but simply defend myself on the basis that I did not want to further perpetuate their tiresome efforts to turn wikipedia into a battlefield. If Ultra's behavior does not get examined in this arbcom case, I have no doubt that an arbcom case is awaiting him in the future, esp. if his behaviors continue as before. There are many editors who have been frustrated with his antics and as a result he is a net negative to the project.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

As you well know, you're under 1/7RR parole, which you've just broken. I've blocked you for 24h. Behave William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not supposed to block those you are engaged in the conflict with. Why is it your not behaving? The prohibition refers to article content, which was confirmed last time this type of thing was reported to the enforcement board, and what would have probably happened if you followed correct policy procedure. So, I protest your block, which is using the tools again to silence your opponents and gain an unfair advantage.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Blocking admin is involved in the disputed and reverted me on an arbcom workshop page. I reverted him. Then he blocks me and reverts back. Two problems with his block stems from these facts. 1. My revert parole prohibition refers to article content/main pages, which was confirmed last time this type of thing was reported to the enforcement board regarding a revert on the talk page, or tags; This would have probably have been confirmed this time if the blocking admin had followed correct policy procedure. 2. Because he did not, this block is a case of the involved admin using his tools again to silence his opponents and gain an unfair advantage in the dispute. What he should have done, if he felt I violated something was to report me to the enforcement board and have an uninvolved admin take a look. WMC has a habit of not following the rules but applying them against editors he is involved in a dispute with. This block effectively silences me from being able to respond or leave evidence on my own arbcom case, that WMC is participating in against me.}}

I am going to talk to William about the block. Dmcdevit·t 23:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, you say "the prohibition refers to article content, which was confirmed last time this type of thing was reported to the enforcement board." I don't know if this is true or not, but can you provide relevant links for the place this question was previously discussed? It would be helpful for any admin reviewing this block. I think it was wholly inappropriate for WMC to block you given his involvement (and even if there was consensus on that point I would not personally unblock you given my involvement), but I'm not sure whether or not you technically violated your 1RR per week restriction.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for input at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_review_of_block. Dmcdevit·t 04:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-read your arbcomm restriction. It seems quite clear: subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.. Can you point to the exception, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have to go and look to find it but I now recall specifically the details. On one occasion JohnSmiths who is very vigilant of all my edits found I violated the revert as it pertained to a tag on the article--not the content. So he reported me to the arbcom enforcement page (as is the proper thing to do when one wants to report a violation and seek a block). The determination was that since this was not a revert of content in an article it did not count. A similar occurrence was for a 3RR report (not arbcom related) and it was deemed to to count because it took place on the talk page instead of the article. Its these two precedents that make it possible that the arbcom page does not count the same as an article content issue. In anycase, I regard this as secondary and moot to my objection: you abused your admin powers yet again, and this is why I object. If you had reported me the the enforcement board, and an uninvolved admin looked at it and agreed with you, and blocked me, I would not have protested. So this is really the problem here. You want me to follwo the rules, fine. But you are not following the rules. So are you going to block yourself, to be consistent? Rules are rules, right?Giovanni33 (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the dispute on the page, I objected to the well-poisoning prefacing the edits of another editor who can't respond anymore prior to any decision regarding his comments. There had already been a motion filed about this, and that sufficed, pending a ruling/decision. Editors are not supposed to edit in other editors sections, only their own. Claiming that I'm trying to hide things is utterly asinine.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have to go and look to find it... do let us know if you manage to find it; until then I'm not changing my mind. As to the dispute on the page: you're discretely omitting the reason the other editor can't respond: because he's been indef'd. Noting that fact is *not* well-poisonning William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That he can't respond any more is the only relevant fact. Otherwise it introduces prejudice since his evidence/comments are not related to the fact of why he was banned. However, the fact that he was banned is already stated above; there is no need to edit in his section to state this fact yet again, unless for well-poisoning.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. But don't revert the page again or you'll be blocked again William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. Also, I hope you took to heart an important lesson re your own conduct from this, although you do (or should) have known better.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments for Arbcom Case

Since I've been prevented from editing on my arbcom case, I'll leave some statements here that I wanted to add there.

In particular I want to address this principle:

[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/]

• 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.

Unused Remedy

Regarding the appearance of socket-puppets, there is a principle I agreed to, voluntarily, about 2 years ago, regarding puppetry issues. I pledged a willingness to recuse myself from articles should editors appear who give the appearance of being puppets. My only condition was that I would be told that this is suspected by an uninvolved admin, 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.

What happened, is that this was not followed, but should have resolved the issue, per the previous resolution. 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!”

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) 20:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Old e-mail

Hi Giovanni, regarding this play ticket business, I realized you had sent me an e-mail about that the day you went to the play (in reply to something I sent you). It might be worthwhile to post that in the evidence section, but I would need your permission to do so. Probably I should actually send it to you over e-mail and you could make sure you were okay with posting the relevant information, with any of the identifying information removed of course. I'm not sure it will make a whole lot of difference, but it might clear up the play ticket situation a bit. You can either send me an e-mail or a drop me a note here and I'll e-mail the relevant material to you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have my permission, to add that to evidence. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Scarborough

See this reply I made to DHeyward after he left a note on my talk page. It would probably be best if you just avoided contact with DHeyward at Joe Scarborough and similar articles where you have not both edited in the past. DHeyward was clearly edit warring and was lucky to avoid a block, but reverting him was a bad idea (nothing technically wrong about it) given that you two are disputing elsewhere. I know you say he has followed and reverted you elsewhere and I don't doubt it, but there's no reason to broaden the dispute between the two of you to an article about a TV talking head. Just some advice, though as I said in the link above DHeyward was wrong to suggest you were some reverting for a banned editor since that was patently not the case (I don't even know what he's referring to since it involves oversighted, i.e. deleted, edits). Anyhow not a big deal but you might want to put some distance between yourself and DHeyward to the extent that's possible.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite reasonable, and I certainly will follow that sage advice. Thanks for taking a look at it for us, too. Although you're right and I did not plan to continue my involvement in that dispute, I think some good came out of it anyway: a stop to an edit war that has been going on for days, and getting DHeyward to use the talk page instead like he is supposed to. I just did not like how he was refusing to engage in discussion with the other editor but simply edit warred over and over (I had no idea of their history but that shouldn't be relevant anyway). So I'm glad to see that has stopped now. Had he chosen this proper and mature method before, I'd have no problem, and I doubt the other editor would be edit-waring with him too. Ignoring one's opponents attempts to talk and simply reverting is the bad form that made me want to intervene. DHeyward's argument on the talk page that he is making now, I think, is a good one, btw. So I hope he takes this as a lesson learned: we must always adhere to a professional and respectful interaction with editors with whom we are in conflict with, and this is the basis for resolving the dispute - through logical discussion, not edit-warring and ignoring. Whenever I see this basic precept being violated, its offends my wiki-sensibilities, you can say. But one thing that never ceases to amaze me about DHeward, is that no matter what, he always seems to come up with the most outlandish ways to fail the assumption of good faith, even to the extent of imputing weird conspiracy theories about my intentions, what I know, and what I was planning, thinking, etc, for any action I take or don't take no matter how illogical. It just goes to prove what a good policy WP:AGF is. I think this would be a good second lesson where he falls short of having mastered.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

1/7 RR warning

You've just broken your parole. Please self-revert before you get reported William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Too late [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the terms of your ArbCom restriction by making >1 revert per week on Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell ^Talk 21:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that you are the subject of another ongoing ArbCom case. If you're willing to promise to edit nowhere except that ArbCom case for the duration of the block, then I'll unblock you (or another admin can). MastCell ^Talk 21:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I didn't even know I violated it. It would have been nice to have been notified. Thanks, MastCell.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look and those are two completely different sections of the article with no relation to each other. So I was not reverting the same thing more than once a week, hence there is no 2nd revert being made. To count each completely separate thing makes no sense, since one edit can revert many things in one revert, or they can be broken up and several reverts can be made, each of a different part of the article, but have the same effect: hence, one revert = many reverts, which can not be true. Therefore, even though there are two edits, since each edit is of a completely different section unrelated to each other, they should not be added together.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Giovanni33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While I agree not to edit for the remainder of the block, per Mastcell's offer, I'd like this block reviewed for reasons as explained above. The two reverts were of completely different sections of the article with no relation to each other. So I was not reverting the same thing more than once a week, hence there is no 2nd revert being made per the parole. To count each completely separate thing makes no sense, since one edit can revert many things in one, single, revert, or it can be broken up and several reverts, each of a different part of the article, but have the same effect as what would have been counted as one revet. I understand 'partial" reverts count, but this was not even a partial one of each other. Under this standard I'm being blocked for, what would be counted as one revert could also be many reverts, which can not be both logically true. The difference of making them all in one single edit should not be the determining, crucial difference (many people break up edits to make it more transparent, and easily understood). Therefore, even though there are two edits, each being a different revert, since each edit is of a completely different section unrelated to each other, they should not be added together to count as two for the purpose of looking for a violation. No other interpretation makes much sense.

Decline reason:

Your plea is not believable as you dispute the nature of the block. You were edit warring at a time when you should be on your best behaviour. — John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As a passing outsider, I would also think that the intention was to prevent reverting of the same edit more than once, rather than the action of reverting. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but your edits can't be seen as a single one because they were made with more than 24 hours in between and you were on both occasions reverting an editor. Generally a group of edits can be taken as one reversion if they are made together and another editor does not come along and then in so making more edits you are undoing what he has. As you will remember revert restrictions such as 3RR and 1RR cover any reversion, not just the same one. I'd just accept the block and MastCell's fair unblock terms. John Smith's (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside for Ned Scott, revert paroles are designed to stop edit-warring, thus they must be able to apply to any revert. John Smith's (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No point arguing this block, at this point. I don't want to clutter up my talk page with this type of argument. I've already accepted Mast Cell's, condition not to edit for the duration of the block, except on my arbcom case, but I just want another admin to review the block anyway, so I can get the clarification on how to properly interpret future edits in respect to it being a revert or not. The block review was declined by the reason did not make much sense to me: "my plea is not believable, and I'm supposed to be on my best behavior"?!!? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean or what it has to do with my interpretation of the 3RR rule. But, it's not a big deal. I just had hoped a clarification could be made about the rules (not question me, here).Giovanni33 (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You reverted to the same text twice in two days. [13] and [14]. Both restored "against concentrated civilian populated areas". - Merzbow (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I did not see that earlier, as the first revert was a general revert of many issues, and I forgot that the second revert contained that part found in the first. So I stand corrected that it was a partial revert. But, still, if the above had happened, I'm still curious if it would have counted. According to JohnSmith's, after 24 hours, it does count. I was not aware of that rule, and its a good one to know about.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan. I agree to abide by this condition and will ask you or another admin to make sure the original block term has expired before I edit any other pages.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

DHeyward's 3RR violation

Would you care to provide diffs? I've only edited the article 4 times. Only 2 were reverts. Considering that one of those four times is being complained about by you as a complete rewrite of a paragraph, I'm not sure you understand what a 3RR violation is. I realize your ability to spot violations is rather shaky given your current block, arbcom sanctions and your extensive block log so I'd advise you to police yourself. --DHeyward (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not false, but as I said, I won't report you this time, although it's not the first time you have violate the 3RR, with your edit-warring. In this case, I'm referring to your removal of the content in the section about the choice of target. The first time you blanked it by saying its "untrue." That was a revet. Then you edit warred by reverting that two more times. Lastly, your 4th revert is to replace the section with the opposite conclusion (that was not sourced, and not true, and was reverted by another editor). That last counts as a revert since you are still undoing the edit, removing all the content as the previous three reverts. And they all occurred within a 24 hour period. Thus, it is a clear vio of 3RR.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. You seriously say that my first edit was a revert? Of what and to what? And the 4th edit being a rewrite of the section is also a revert? The rewrite was sourced and it replaced a section that was not sourced properly that came to an inaccurate conclusion. Please see WP:3RR and WP:revert. I have never been blcoked for 3RR because I know what it is. Please report me if you think it is a violation. I want to see the justification and the diffs. --DHeyward (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not nonsense, but it is nonsense to keep arguing with you, which is not of interest. Yes, the first blanking of the section undoes the editor who placed it there, hence its a revert. The last one is not so much a re-write, as a complete removal of the content of the section and its replacement but what I can only assume is a joke (some website that does not even support what you claimed), while removing, again, the material you were edit-warring over. Hence, its a revert. Btw, you were deleting it even though I provided a source and quoted that source. If we disagree then that is fine, but I doubt you have anything new to add to our disagreement so its best to just drop it. You should not be edit-warring in any case. 3RR does not entitle you to make 3 reverts (even though you did make 4 in by my count). If you want to find out if you can be blocked, why not report yourself? heheGiovanni33 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not feed the trolls

You do not need to respond to every piece of bait thrown at you. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. Thanks for the advice.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked: Please Copy to ANI

I have blocked you for a period of one week per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Giovanni33. Upon reviewing New antisemitism and its talk page, it appears that you have not discussed your changes to the lead since last month. Also, you have been slow edit warring on the article, as opposed to seeking a consensus for your edits by discussing them. This block will be added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's#Log of blocks and bans, and I will make a comment at WP:AE. Khoikhoi 03:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. I've discussed all my changes, many times, and each time before I make any edit to the page. You are not looking at the right section, even.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Can you provide a link to a comment of yours from this month discussing your reversion of the word "controversial" into the lead? Also, can you please explain your slow edit warring. It appears that you have reverted infrequently in order to evade your "1 revert per week" restriction. Khoikhoi 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, if I abide by the restriction, I'm guilty of evading it? That makes no sense. My revert has not been 1 revert per week, either. As I explained, the last time I made that change was on the 9th, and then on the 21st, which is a whole two weeks apart!Giovanni33 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your unblock request below: both of those are comments justifying your removal of the image, not your changes to the lead. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Giovanni33. You certainly haven't addressed your last two reverts to the lead as far as I can tell. Also, your second link was to a comment made after you had already been reverted. A comment made after your change has already been reverted cannot possibly comply with the requirements of your parole. Khoikhoi 04:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The change in the lead has its own section with three comments from me - and no one else. Am I supposed to have a discussion with myself? No one opposes that change, and I've discussed it as much as possible, logically. It makes no sense otherwise; that I've discussed my change is the only requirement. If someone wants to address any point I've made, I will be sure continue to discuss it. I do not understand how you are able to make up new restrictions for me: Yes, I made a comment right before and right after my edit, true. But where does my restriction say that posting a comment right after I made the change is not valid or does not satisfy the restriction??! It says: "Giovanni33 is limited to one revert per page per week...and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." And that is exactly what I've been doing. It doesn't give a specific time period before or after. We do have the ability to use our common sense, right?Giovanni33 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If no one allegedly opposes your changes to the lead, why is it that you keep having to revert? Look at [15] and [16]. It is clear that other people do apparently object to your changes. The parole requires that you justify your reverts on the talk page every single time, and you failed to do that. You might have discussed the image, but certainly not the lead. Khoikhoi 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question for them, not me. The later reverts seem to be lazy, sloppy ones, opposing the image removal that also reverted my intro changes. I see no objections on talk by anyone regarding those changes.[[17]] And, no, no where in my restriction does it say I I should copy and past the same justification to a section that no one disputed, after I posted my justification three time, with no response. That is absurd. It would make sense if there was a new change, something different, as that would need discussion and justification. But that is not the case here: I've discussed it and refer to it, and no one has responded with any objections. Again, this is a matter of common sense, and you are making up stuff that is no where to be found in my arbcom ruling.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Giovanni33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

False block. I'm blocked for not discussing my changes. Completely untrue. Even a cursory glance at the talk page refutes this false claim. See:[[18]] The specific edit I made on June 21st, was discussed here by me on the same day:[[19]],[[20]] The only time I made a change it to before that was about 2 weeks ago, in which I also discussed this:[[21]] The section that you refer to brings up a change that no one is disputing, or discussing, so it stands to explain my edit. Surely, I don't have to copy and paste what I already wrote? That would be irrational. Also, I'm not reverting once a week, either. Like I said the last time I did was about 2 weeks ago, plenty of time for editors to comment and voice any objections or suggestions.

Decline reason:

The arbcom restriction isn't that should discuss most of your reverts, but all of them. You reverted to include the word 'controversial' in the lead without discussion. — PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Giovanni33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

But I did discuss ALL of my edits. The word "controversial" is explained clearly in this section and in which no one raised any objections:[[22]] I allowed a lot of time to anyone to discuss any disagreements about my proposed change before making them, as well. The only change that was disputed on talk, and thus open for discussion was the image issue. When I made the changes, my edit addressed both issues. But I was blindly reverted and it undid both changes (even edit summaries only mention image/mediation). So, I further discussed the image issue as that was the only part where other editors contested on the talk page. Yet, still I left a total of three message in the section about the word "controversial' addition, and noted that no one is disputing this, before I made that change again, and after waiting a significant amount of time for a response to my message about it. So I don't see how it could possibly be said that I have not discussed my edits. I have discussed them all. I made no edit that was not discussed, and further discussion about a part of my edit in the absence of any response about it, and without any change of circumstances does not make sense, and is not part of my arb com restrictions. Common sense surely applies here.

Decline reason:

And you've been blocked how many times before for this?!? — -Pilotguy contact tower 23:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Being blocked falsely before, does not make subsequent bad blocks, valid. In fact, when I've been falsely blocked in the past, it gets properly overturned, reversed. So I don't understand how your question is relevant to the facts of this case, but to answer it, I've never been blocked under the false pretext that I did not discuss an edit when I clearly had. I diff I provided above shows this. So why am I being blocked, if it is not based on the facts as alleged? And, why am I not being unblocked based on an examination of the relevant facts? Is it because there is an arbcom case on and now is the time that I need to be silenced? I find this very interesting.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. Giovanni's block log and history of sock puppetry going back 2.5 years is completely irrelevant now. Wikipedia has well established that giovannis method of operation is completely acceptable, otherwise he would have been blocked long ago. To change course now and proclaim that a simple innocent reversion is against policy flies in the face of wiki acceptance. In unlikely event that this reversion IS against policy, the reality is that wiki has accepted such reversions from Giovanni many times in the past and from other users, therefore wiki has waived any such right to assert such restrictions now.

Giovanni, you are being railroaded simply because you lean to the left. I urge to assert your moral and legal rights to stop this travesty. 66.57.35.127 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I fully intend to fight for not just my rights but for all victims of politically based prosecution. Their attacks are based on lies, and now they are not even following their own rules. Blocks are now imposed on me in the absence of reason except for complete hilarity, and in the face of facts that clearly refute the allegations. Apparently, any reason - or no reason - will do, as long as I'm blocked. Then it's a self-referencing circle: use the block log to justify the blocks, and keep repeating the lies. I don't know if I am being railroaded, but I do know that the rules this time around are not being followed, that there is clearly a double standard in play, and that I have been targeted by desperate bullies who lost to the power of reason and must resort to dishonesty in order to attempt to obtain my banishment. If Wikipedia's formal structures prove futile in protecting me, and instead allow this dastardly and despicable effort to succeed, then I certainly am prepared to act in my defense, and ultimately, in defense of Wikipedia itself for an injustice to one is an injustice to all. It will be a noble fight to see that truth prevails in the end. Whatever it is, it shall be, but let's hope that escalation will not be a necessity. Giovanni33 (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm blocked because I did not discuss my changes to the lead. But is that really true? If I did fail to discuss it then there should be no section I created to discuss it. So the issue is not the failure to discuss it, the issue one of timing, i.e. did I discuss it sufficiently enough or close enough to the time I made the edit, and the issue of before or after. But this question of "timing" is grey area at best, and not a part of my arbcom parole conditions. Therefore a warning and clarification should be made instead of a week block. I discussed the edit, and no one contested it on the talk page, despite waiting two additional weeks since I last made an edit. I'm perfectly willing to adopt "timing" standards, but they should be make clear before hand. Currently there are no time "before vs after" or timing requirements. It says, "Giovanni33 is limited to one revert per page per week...and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." That is clear enough and I just use common sense. It does not say anything about how long my discussions are valid to count as valid for the edit I plan to make based on those discussions. That I discussed it is the point. That no one opposed my suggested changes on the talk page is another point: I raised the issue, left three messages, and no one contested it. I waited two weeks before making an edit again is noteworthy. The contested aspect (the image issue) was further discussed the day of the edit. The fact is, all my edits were discussed. So again, how can I be blocked on the rationale that I did not discuss my edits, praytell? The answer appears to be this new, invented standard that is no where to be found in my arbcom conditions: the issue of timing. When asked how they came up with this new restriction, the question is ignored. I find that telling. Well if that is going to be the basis for punitive action, the subject should be given some notice about it. Is that too much to ask? Unless the real purpose here is not to achieve anything other than to get me blocked, banned, silenced. So reason goes out the window. Several admins have told me that they feel this block was premature, but that it's a complicated issue. If its complicated shouldn't those who favor blocking get clarification before acting? I do ask for clarification from the arbcom committee.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User HK30

Are you admitting this was you now? From what I have read that seems to be the case. Sophia 07:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that was not one of mine I'm glad to say. I'm not sure who is saying that, either.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a relief. The way the arbcom findings are coming out they are pining that one on you. Sophia 07:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. But given that this is already a big travesty of justice (or heading that way by appearances), ironically, the more obvious that the injustice is, the less credible and legitimate it becomes. So they might as well pile it on. :) In any case, I do plan to appeal and seek remedies as necessary and appropriate. They certainly won't stand in the long term; I am just waiting for the fine decision. I would have hoped that Arbcom would have proved themselves able to resolve this within their arena and level of authority; I did e-mail them regarding establishing some pretty substantial evidence of my innocence too. But for all their authority, I do have a fear they are lacking in being able to conduct a professional, careful, and critical evaluation of the evidence. I hope my fear proves to be just that, and not one that is substantiated. As is the case with my currently being blocked, the facts seem to weight less than the desired outcome, and the actual rules only to the degree that they serve these ends. If so, this calls for escalation to a more professional level of conflict resolution where the facts can be very closely examined with a critical eye. Call me an idealist, but truth matters to me, and the pursuit of it even trumps immediate practical alternatives. At the moment, eyes are focused on what is to become before the next steps are taken to defend myself against these quite serious attacks on my name and character, which more importantly, have serious ramifications for other editors who show similar affinities in the future. Getting rid of me is the right-wing POV pushers dream come true. The wake up call to that dream is yet to come, though. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I always thought HK30, SimplePilgrim and Trollwatcher were linked. Noone seems to have looked at that properly but I didn't bother pointing this out as I seem to champion lost causes and didn't want to doom you faster! However submitting evidence never seems to effect things - as you say the Arbcom decisions seem to be driven by the desired outcome. Sophia 16:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'll miss reading Gio's debates, I figure Arbcom may be wrong on some of the details, but I seriously doubt they are wrong on the general scheme of things. But who knows? This may be part of the fun for him. ^^James^^ (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do have a point there, James. The arbcom is getting some of this right, because I had indeed socked in 2006. It started off though as a bitter response to false accusations, then then editing from a friends home, who I introduced to WP, and finally to full blown socking from a near by cafe. I was new to Wikipedia and simply did not have much respect for the process, and rules, and therefore really the community. All that evidence is thrown in this case and seems to weigh heavily, apparently.

I guess in practice the fact that I given a second chance by the community despite these serious breaches on my part had its time limit. Its too bad that Musical Linguist, an admin I later came to admire greatly, is still not around. She possessed some key linguistic unique traits that she kept secret, but may have shared with a select few. I've attempted to contact her without luck myself, see: [[23]]

Of course, if the current proposed decisions are heavily based on socking from 2006, being innocent now may not matter; It appears that it is possible to "bite from the same apple" twice, and I have no one to blame for those misbehaviors but myself. However, I have to think that the committee gives most weight to recent allegations, not those of a very green and immature newbie from 2006 that did in fact learn his lesson, and who the community decided back then to forgive. Ironically, it hurts me to have to think about fighting WP if I get wrongly banned based on false allegations. I'd much prefer to pay a monetary fine for the past and have it wiped clean. I wonder if making a sizable donation can buy me some good faith today. :) It's much better to spend the money that way.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)