Case Opened on 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the

• Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Requests for comment

• Talk:Mao: The Unknown_Story#Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link and mention of Professor Gao
• Talk:Cultural Revolution#Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link
• Talk:Jung Chang#Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link

Other

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2
• Third opinion
• Straw poll

In response to

To the best of my recollection I have had no prior interaction with either Giovanni33 or John Smith's. When John Smith's contacted me offline I disclosed the fact immediately and explicitly extended a commensurate offer to Giovanni33. When some editors proposed linking John Smith's conduct to the block on Giovanni33 I replied that tu quoque is not a defense and repeatedly offered to examine evidence regarding John Smith's conduct as a separate matter. Such evidence was not forthcoming as of this arbitration request, but (as seen below) my fairness and impartiality were beginning to come under challenge. No dispute is worth my reputation, certainly not this one. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I opened this request at the juncture when I did and named El_C as a party because El_C undermined the attempts to broker a community-based solution. After this post I requested that he change course to a more productive direction. These responses followed.[1] [2] [3] [4] Negotiations of this sort are a delicate undertaking under the best of circumstances, but with a fellow administrator openly and persistently doubting my competence the odds of success rapidly diminished to near zero. El_C's long history and evident partisanship also weighed in the decision. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, there have been at least six prior attempts at formal dispute resolution. That is more than most of the cases accepted for arbitration so, rather than being premature, I would characterize this request as somewhat tardy. I had no involvement in the disputes until a few days ago or I would probably have brought it here sooner. Durova^Charge! 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war has been going on for years. Durova's hastily and without discussion imposed an indefinite block, which effectively sided with one of the parties. From then on, she seemed inclined / willing to give John Smith the upper hand in any settlement, which he promptly took advantage of. Giovanni has been facing concerted prejudice due to unpopular in-1st-World politics in combination with an infamously-cited lengthy block log, whose activity, however, is mostly limited to one year ago. I'm at a disadvantage here because forces which favour banning Giovanni are participants in the Committee mailing list, so their view is likely to be better represented. El_C 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passage above retracted with apologies to Dmcdevit. Also, I was not attempting to stain Durova's reputation, that is a gross overreaction, although, yes, I do direct certain criticisms. Her action, by placing an additional censure on Giovanni, seemed to have inspired John Smith to think is can continue to edit war, as he has been for years, over the issue for years to come. So, he essentially said: 'provide me with a

highly advantageous remedy, or I'll be taking it to arbitration where Giovanni will be banned for sure.' El_C 04:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As an aside, I'm not sure why Durova lists me as a party. Not that I mind, but perhaps her opening statement can account for this. El_C 06:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what John Smith expects me to retract. My interpretation of his "offer"? Well, sorry, but I'm not prepared to do that. El_C 09:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to John Smith's latest comment directed at myself: at no time did I use sarcasm, nor am I undermining anyone. El_C 11:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I find also of interest is that Durova opted not to wait for Giovanni33 to answer her question about seeking an informal solution. Why? El_C 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw at Giovanni request, of course. Perhaps it would have been prudent to wait for him to return. Whereas I don't so much mind having the Committee members look into this with the intensiveness and extensiveness of an arbitration case, he may well prefer trying out an informal solution first (and, in fact, he did submit a proposal), and this is not ElC-Durova-Giovani-JohnSmith, after all. I still feel that Durova placing herself as "broker" was a mistake. That should have come from someone who treated both parties evenhandedly, such as Dmcdevit, as opposed to herself, who has placed severe censure on only one of the parties. Additionally, her willingness and seemingly active participation in shifting an active discussion from ANI to CSN, where it merely lined up the fifty percent supporting/opposing in a poll-like manner, and was a priori not a bi-lateral undertaking, was, likewise, questionable. This, culminating with her linking to and then, to my astonishment, copying J. Smith's diatribe as a legitimate proposal, which indeed I objected to. I do/did not mean to be offensive when I call/ed it a diatribe, but... view it yourself. And, when we decode what it says, yes, it basically asks for some sort of an advantage for that set of articles. Now, there is definitely, in my mind, the potential for an informal solution succeeding, with or without Durova at the helm (but the with poses additional limitations), and I stress: if both parties wish for me to find something else to do, I don't mind at all. There seems to be no shortage of temporarily dead Japanese Prime Ministers for me to attend to, instead. El_C 21:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to rebut El_C's misrepresentations of my attempt to resolve the Giovanni matter. I did not say provide me with a highly advantageous remedy, or I'll be taking it to arbitration where Giovanni will be banned for sure. What I said was that although supporters of Giovanni might not like tough measures against him (which were very similar but more flexible than what User:Endroit had proposed), if consensus could not be reached it would probably be escalated to arbitration (which is what Durova has done) where more severe measures would probably be imposed on him. I never made the threat to do it myself. More importantly it was not highly advantageous for me because if someone wanted to pursue a case against me they still could. I was trying to reassure Giovanni I wouldn't game his revert-parole, a measure many people thought a possible solution.

I would like El_C to retract his comments on these points.

As to the case, from the discussions on

I'm not sure why El_C is named but it might be because some view him as partisan and part of the Giovanni problem (i.e. protecting him) – see User:DHeyward's comments on CSN – as well as the fact he essentially vetoed any community action that didn't impose the same restrictions on me, despite the fact Giovanni has been up for community discussion more than once and I have never been. I think he may have been frustrated by seeing a friend of his in trouble and without realising it wanted to punish me for the fact Giovanni's behaviour on Wikipedia had finally caught up with him, or he wanted to reduce the criticism of Giovanni by putting half the blame onto me. Of course this is ridiculous because by far the majority of my conflicts involve Giovanni, whereas he will argue and edit-war against almost anyone.

El_C's refusal to withdraw his comments on my offer, even after a very clear explanation of what I did say, is very regrettable - I think it shows somewhat a lack of impartiality on his behalf. John Smith's 09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, you appear to try to be undermining Durova. You should note that you are in party responsible for this being elevated to arbitration when you insisted on a very unequitable and false "parity" in demanding that I be tied to any restrictions levelled on Giovanni. If you had not made sarcastic and unhelpful comments about my proposal and been more flexible in working something out, rather than trying to punish me for Giovanni's edit-warring across Wikipedia, we might not be here. John Smith's 09:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, whenever anyone on Wikipedia says "X is interesting" in regards to what another user has done, it normally means "look at this behaviour - it's suspicious". That is an attempt to undermine. John Smith's 11:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________

CBDunkerson, I rejected the idea that I should be placed on 1 revert parole along with Giovanni given I've never had as much as an RfC on me, let alone been brought up on WP:ANI. Additionally, if you removed Giovanni from the frame I wouldn't have had most of those blocks - if you removed me from the frame it wouldn't really affect Giovanni's block log history because he fights with people all over the place on multiple articles. This isn't about a block count as much as it is Giovanni's behaviour. John Smith's 18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) _________________________[reply]

Bigtimepeace, many users sadly edit-war on Wikipedia. As a result they gain blocks. However to suddenly dump a user on 1 revert parole without even having their behaviour discussed once is rather severe. People like you objected to Giovanni getting indefinite blocked because of the lack of discussion, or somewhat. Yet you want me to be placed on parole without any real discussion? I don't see how that is a balanced approach.

The fact Giovanni is the main reason I have edit-warred is actually very important. If someone is wikistalking you with impunity (as has been shown), gaming the system and trying to get you blocked by putting up false 3RR reports, etc it is not easy to stay calm. When someone like me feels no one cares or takes note of what is going on/the person tormenting you has an admin to back them up, you either withdraw completely from wikipedia or you try to fight your corner. That doesn't justify edit-warring, but it makes it more understandable.

You complain I won't admit responsibility whilst at least Giovanni has, but I don't believe that is the case. As User:Endroit said in regards to Giovanni's proposal here, This appears to be an effort by Giovanni33 to shirk responsibility by blaming it all on one user. He may have later begrudingly stated he is partly responsible, but I don't think he actually does think that. He will say anything to get let off the hook - he's done it before when he promised to behave every time he faced a real sanction. This seems no different to me.

I don't think any admin can place someone on parole - there's an official process that needs to be adhered to. John Smith's 21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edit-warred and should not have let myself be drawn into such behaviour - sorry if I wasn't clear on that, but because I wanted to address the matters separately I was saving most of the comments for myself later. However, I dispute that the general opinion we should both be placed on parole - if anything the general opinion was that both myself and Giovanni's behaviour should be dealt with separately. If you want to avoid an arbitration case I suggest you intercede and convince El_C not to keep opposing this method of addressing our behaviour, as he seems to be tarnishing everyone who thinks otherwise with the brush of "political bias" or some other stigma. John Smith's 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

______________________

Durova makes a good point. Sadly many stages in dispute resolution have been tried in regards to the various disputes (Giovanni at the centre of all of them) and they've not worked. More importantly the community seems very split on how to deal with the matter - without arbitration it is impossible for consensus to be reached on what we should do next. That would leave admins to enforce their own blocks, and given El_C's partiality to Giovanni that might lead to wheel-warring.

I should point out that I have never been opposed to this being resolved without arbitration (I certainly don't think it's the best solution). All I have said is that all the parties concerned should be judged on their own merits, rather than people like El_C insisting we both be lumped together and arbitrarily put under the same restrictions without a thorough discussion. This can all be avoided if he and a few others would agree to address the matters separately. Arbitration is only inevitable if they insist on the aforementioned false "parity" by which I am punished for Giovanni getting into trouble for the umpteenth time, which will never gain community consensus. John Smith's 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ______________________[reply]

Hong, you're not quite right when you said I would assure Giovanni I wouldn't play with a parole placed on him - it was actually a guarantee because it would be backed up by a fairly punitive response if I broke my undertaking. The reason I offered nothing more was because I rejected his demand that I be "judged" at the same time as he was. I was prepared for a discussion about myself but only if it was separate.

If he only reverts Gio's edits once, is this considered gaming Gio's revert parole or not?

Actually I was very clear. I said that if I started reverting any changes he made on a list of previously agreed articles reserved for him then I would receive the ban - so one revert would be enough. Otherwise there would be no point, would there? John Smith's 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting a revert restriction for you only on a number of articles would essentially allow you to game his revert parole on articles we didn't think of or articles that have not been touched yet. Hong, if I did that it would be rather blatant and obviously get me in trouble - my proposal was giving Giovanni some "personal space" that he could be sure I wouldn't intrude upon. On the other hand a complete ban on changing anything we do to any article would be rather impractical and open to abuse. John Smith's 21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a restriction on the both of you from reverting each other's edits on any article Well that's a subjective concept. It doesn't mean much and is open to dispute. Giovanni accused me of reverting when I was making different changes each time to the articles in question.

If the two of you are dedicated to stop edit warring with each other, I would think that this should be a pretty fair solution.

I was happy to stop, until Giovanni started vetoing everything I wanted to do.

Limiting the solution to only a number of articles is just asking for more edit warring, because you two have a history of edit warring across multiple articles. Not if Giovanni was placed on 1RR, which he did agree to and the community seemed reasonably happy with. As I said, he kicked this off recently when he decided he had a veto on what could be changed and what could not.

By the way, Hong, you've wikistalked yourself such as here, here and here. Forgot about that, didn't you? Also I do have an interest in things like the Holocaust (I did make an improvement here that Giovanni did not change) and philosophy - can you say Giovanni has an interest in the Royal Navy and Japan, or show that he was trying to make pro-active improvements? John Smith's 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC) __________[reply]

PalaceGuard008, who did Endroit have a disagreement over on the Senkaku Islands page? Oh surprise-surprise - it was you! I do wonder if your comments here are part of a grudge you have against him. It is not sensible to characterise someone as "pro-Japanese" and "anti-Chinese" because they disagree with you. You should not label people in that fashion.

As for myself, I strongly refute the implication that I am anti-Chinese. I made a joke about the Chinese Communist Party and no more - don't overreact.

The fact you appear to associate Communism with China itself may betray your own bias and lack of objectivity. This is in addition to your rather ridiculous assertion that Endroit is partisan in this because we are both "anti-Chinese" or some such nonsense. You have to do better than that to show some sort of relationship above the sort of day-to-day interaction one sees on Wikipedia. John Smith's 09:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am ambivalent as to the necessity of arbitration at this stage. I still think this is premature, and rushed, as I had assumed that the community had the ability to impose a reasonable and workable solution short of going to formal arbitration, even without John Smith’s agreement—something that is always ideal but not practible as he rarely deviates from hard line stances, nor does he realize there is a major problem with his tenacious editing behavior of his own causing. So there are good reasons for considering arbitration, although I believe that a simple revert patrol (together with a possible Mao related topical ban) would work.

I’m also equivocal because the origin of this case stems from a serious error, on the part of the admin taking the action against me--instead doing anything against John Smiths. She relied on my past block log, specifically the past sock puppets. I think this is a big mistake. Also, the fact that the cited “divided community” in fact stems from a political divide among right/left editors who are quick jump on their political opponent. If we discount these actors, there is no real major division, there was acceptance of my proposal as being reasonable, and opposition for to the blocking admins one sided actions against only me.

To be clear, I don’t want John Smiths banned. I think he can be reformed, and I hold no personal animosity against any editor. My motivation was for his edit warring to cease because I saw it being harmful for WP. Hence, my report to ANI to report the 3 RR violation [5]; there I pointed out only some of the scope of his edit wars, gaming the system, and pov pushing. I did not edit war with him over most of his edit wars, which take place with other editors--not me; I stayed clear as he edit wars over silly things such changing dating systems (BC vs CE). But when he was violating Undue Weight in main history articles, I felt compelled to step in to stop the pov pushing. I certainly was not the best editor do this, or perhaps even to bring this to the admin board, as this prompted the usual political opponents who are always quick to bring up my past block log at every occasion, including past socks, etc, and saying I should be banned--hoping that an admin takes the bait. This time it succeeded, and I think that is an error. In WP, we do not ban established editors who have shown to be reformed based on practices that predated their reformation as a basis for severe sanctions. That is what was done in my case, and why I stand before you today. I also note that since then the admin who took this action against consensus, has been one sided, focusing only upon me, despite evidence of John Smith's behaviors. I'm at a loss as to why this is the case, but I am willing, as always, to do what is asked of me provided its reflective of consensus and based on reasons and principals the serve the interests of WP.

I should clarify my statement that this arbcom case stems from a serious error: I point out the reasoning of the blocking admins actions on my talk page. She explains that that it was the puppetry that resulted in her taking the actions, without which it would not have been done, and therefore I would not be here today. See: [6] But this aspect of my past is not relevant today. Everyone who does not have a political axe to grind against me—-including many honest opponents---all agree that this is really a thing of the past. Yet, it's the reason I'm here now. Therefore, because of these reasons, and, moreover, because of the fact that John Smith and I are in an unfinished mediation over these issues (the result of which should solve this particular edit conflict across articles), I think this arbcom case is premature. On the other hand, I can see how it could be accepted as there are real issues it could deal with, as well.

Concerning the sock issues, I left a mini confession about this issue on my talk page: My past puppets: a reformed and now honest wikipedian on the talk page, for brevity sake. Suffice it to say that falling into the temptation of using puppets is something that happened over a year ago, when I first joined the project. Since a years time in between I have had no indications that I ever resumed with such antics. I have edited in peace, close to a year without even a single block. For more about this, see the further reading statement I made on my talk page here: [7] The issue raises the important question: can editors who reform themselves ever be released from the burden of an old but negative block log? History is good, but if one can never qualitatively break with the past, in terms of judgment, then it only encourages editors to start over with a new identity. I’m a classic case of an abuse of the use, meaning, and merits of using a past block log against a reformed editor, when we see the use of the past year old sock issues constantly being brought up to seek my banning.

My colorful block log is almost always cited by ideological opponents, and presented for proof positive for punitive action. But, a careful analysis of our respective block logs reveals John Smith’s is fact worse despite initial appearances, discounting puppetry on mine: his extensive edit warring and pov pushing over many issues with multiple editors reveals only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, block logs do not do justice to the breath and scope of the problem, as they are often products of both chance and active opponents (those that quickly report you, and admins who quickly act to block, while others who go under the radar but do the same or worse in practice). So in actuality, what his block log shows (as bad as it is—and the same goes for many editors who want to see me banned, btw), can only be partly helpful. Yet, while I think he has been very lucky and fallen under the radar; nonetheless his block log is worse than mine in respect to edit warring (repeated actual 3RR violations). Mine was close to a year ago.

That I had a "relapse" with edit warring with him stems from the content of what he was pushing, and I reported it (and admin pointed out what was happening on my talk page, and I know enough about the subject to intercede). Yet, for doing so, and reporting it, action was taking against me instead. Then when that action against was rejected by the community, this arbitration was opened. So on that basis I think there are two ways to look at this:

• 1. Reject case as still premature: edit waring issue was addressed already with a block--probably appropriate (although only John Smith violated 3RR and I didn't). That I accept fault for edit warring; its done and over with and the 48 hr block served as a warning (converting it into a perm ban was wrong and overturned); Let the mediation continue, as its only about 1/3 done. I think either party would accept the conclusion of that mediation as binding.

• Or, 2. if this arbcom is accepted, it could cut shorten this process and, I'd hope, impose a solution that effectively cures the edit warring problems with John Smiths, and I'd happily volunteer to share the penalty for the greater good.

My proposal regarding John Smith and myself was for the community to impose either a 1RR parole or a topical ban on Mao related articles. I thought reasonable and gained some acceptance among most editors. The latter would solve the undue weight/ pov pushing--his inserting the revisionist Jung Change theories (not even a historian), into main history articles--one of the main issues he edit wars about. When the edit warring is combined with adding content that violates an important WP tenant (undue weight), its doubly bad. That is when I stepped in to counter him. His extensive edit warring over silly issues such as dating systems (BCE vs BC), I did not enter, as I don’t about most disputes I encounter. I may revert once or twice at most, preferring instead to just discuss at talk, or simply walk away. I’ve done this many times. This shows improvement over my early days on this issue. Even the blocking admins states that my edit warring appears to be a relapse only. But, John Smith does not do this. He reminds me of myself when I first started to edit here over a year ago. And, yes, this includes his gaming the system, using meatpuppets, and socks. I find the evidence against him in this respect compelling.

So while I proposed equity as a solution to stop the edit warring, I don't think there is equality between us--his edit warring far surpasses mine, over several articles and over several other editors. Also, the content of the POV pushing is another differentiating factor. Yet, I agreed to assume parity in terms of sanctions. I believe the community can do this without arbitration, either now, or if and when the mediation fails. In either case I have confidence in WP, and the arbitration committee to look into the facts and make an appropriate decision, if they should choose that course.Giovanni33 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. Longstanding issues related to user conduct. Prior attempts to deal with the situation have broadened the conflict instead of resolving it. Since the community is divided about how to deal with the situation, the Committee needs to decide how best to resolve it. Will examine the conduct of all involved parties, of course. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Kirill 02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. James F. (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Consensus

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33

1) Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring ([8]).

Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's

2) John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring ([9]).

Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 restricted

1) Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is 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.

Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's restricted

2) John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is 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.

Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at #Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

1. Both John Smith's and Giovanni33 warned on pushing the limit of the 1 week limit. See
   Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Giovanni33. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. On Jan 2, Giovanni made this edit to New antisemitism. On January 8, he reverted to reinstate these changes with this edit. The talk page history shows no edits by Giovanni in the last month. For "fail[ing] to discuss a content reversion", I have blocked Giovanni for 24 hours. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Final warning to both John Smith's and Giovanni33, see the thread in this diff. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. State terrorism and the United States. See here. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. User:Giovanni33 blocked for 24 hours for 2 reverts in quick succession and edit warring on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop. See here. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism ([10], [11]). MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. User:Giovanni33 blocked for 1 week for not discussing his last two reverts to the lead at New antisemitism (the comment he made about his reverts to the lead were a month ago). This is per the restriction that states that he "is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." See here. Khoikhoi 04:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. User:Giovanni33 blocked for one month for using socks to revert twice on Glenn Beck. Here as Giovanni, and here with a sock (confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Giovanni33). Ryan Postlethwaite 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. User:Giovanni33 banned by the community. See talk page and links to pertinent threads therein. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]