The following discussions have been removed from the workshop page, for various reasons. Justifications for each thread being removed will be listed below. Please contact AGK, the case clerk, if you have any enquiries.

This discussion, between Biophys and Giovanni33, was removed on 12 May 2008. The justification was, the comments were reaching the stage whereby their length was detracting from the overall usability of the discussion. Discussion may be continued here. Anthøny 08:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

IWS is now going around the project creating nonsense attack pages. I've opened an ANI on IWS's blatantly disruptive behavior. Adult supervision is requested. - Merzbow ( talk) 23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree it may be disruptive to the goal of trying to prove I'm guilty, but that is a good thing, since I am in fact not guilty. The duplicity here amazes me, though. You call these "nonsense attack pages" when all he is doing is adopting the very same methods you have used against me, only reversing it. If it was good enough for you to use towards others, you should be able to accept your own method being applied against you, no? Also, it look bad that that you feel IWS's investigations are such a threat that he needs to be stopped, when all he is doing is pursing a line of investigation that may uncover some important connections that could turn the tables of this arbitration case against me. If one is interested in uncovering the truth, there is nothing to fear. However, if you want to repudiate your own "evidence" against me, and the charges, then I'd agree with you that it's not fair. But since it's your own standard, I can't see how you can object to it. Giovanni33 ( talk) 23:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The fact that you and your buddies feel the need to circumvent process in an attempt to influence the outcome of this case is quite telling. An innocent man would trust Arbcom to reach an appropriate result instead of exporting the case elsewhere. Jtrainor ( talk) 00:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Buddy? As much as you and Merzbow are. So is your participation here solely in the defense of your pal, regardless of truth? -- I Write Stuff ( talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Merzbow - [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Seems to be an overuse of "lets", not "let's" interestingly enough. -- I Write Stuff ( talk) 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Farcical, since all of those diffs shows correct grammatical usage of "its", while my point with the G33 evidence was his incorrect usage of contractions. - Merzbow ( talk) 00:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Interesting, you discount the Supergreenred, showing your editing traits after the case started, but point out on an article page, that it spelled "its" incorrectly. Is that not hypocritical? Since you are obviously hyper aware of Giovanni's editing style, live in the same area, actually closer to the sockpuppets, and the sockpuppet keeps appearing only to give you further evidence, spelling, lack of defense, etc. Is that not all quite suspicious and beneficial to you? -- I Write Stuff ( talk) 00:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

So I operated a sockpuppet that behaved exactly like G33 for weeks, and then, out of the blue, decided to make a post to Ultra's talk page, after the case started, that just happened to contain bits copy-pasted from my contribution history, perfectly suitable for G33's evidence. That's some fine police work, Lou!- Merzbow ( talk) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually Giovanni's trait of long-windedness was not present, particularly it would be quite difficult to replicate accurately, instead we have "--" which is easy, and improper spelling. Knowing you live in the same geographic region as Giovanni33, and having had previous issues with him, it would not be hard to imagine you running a sockpuppet and simply reverting now and then. Perhaps you can tell us your level of computer expertise, perhaps what field you work in, and if you think it is odd that the person who found all of the evidence lives a few miles from Giovanni. -- I Write Stuff ( talk) 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You appear to have gotten out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. You're free to attempt to convince the Arbitration Committee of whatever you wish, but I won't be responding anymore. - Merzbow ( talk) 01:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I find that interesting because you seem fairly knowledgeable of computers, explaining to Ultramarine how you could log into work remotely to fake editing at the same time. That and the IP that is suppose to be Supergreenred's has edited articles on computer databases. Something that does not seem to be in Giovanni's list of enjoyments. -- I Write Stuff ( talk) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI: I Write Stuff ( talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. - Merzbow ( talk) 21:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

LOL. Really? Man, good thing you took the time to mention it somewhere, or the Arbitrators would have missed this fact entirely. You should try and mention this on every other relevant page and often as possible, though, just in case! -- Kendrick7 ^talk 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

If you're aware of any place that I missed, let me know. - Merzbow ( talk) 23:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Ironically, as User:I Write Stuff seems to indeed have been User:SevenOfDiamonds, who still maintains [8] he's not a sock of User:NuclearUmpf, when JTrainor wrote above that an innocent man would trust Arbcom to reach an appropriate result instead of exporting the case elsewhere, his actions now make a lot more sense. He himself was the "innocent man" fighting the last war, it would seem. A shame in any case, as, were he ever to have been User:NuclearUmpf (possibly the only Latin American progressive in the Five Boroughs, per the wisdom of ArbCom), he seems to have reformed himself otherwise. Stole a loaf of bread and paid for it for the rest of his life per Les Misérables. It occurs to me that the only other project I'm a member of (for no monetary gain that is), has a rather permissive policy called penance, and that project has survived -- well, hang on, let me check my watch -- eh, lets just call it 2,000 years. A shame we have nothing even remotely similar and we are overrun by wannabe Javert's, but I'm, as always, glad wikipedia wasn't around during my own rambunctious youth. (I might be on my 18th year of indef ban from IRC, but hard to say for sure; that doesn't roll over to here though, right??) -- Kendrick7 ^talk 07:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

You must be unfamiliar with NuclearUmpf's history. He was given many opportunities to change his behavior, and did not. I can't think of anybody currently facing or who has been given a long ArbCom ban who hasn't come in trailing a dozen ANI threads and a long block log, containing evidence of second, third, fourth, and fifth chances squandered. - Merzbow ( talk) 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The odd part is that I share no such history with Nuclear. If you look at my accounts, they have no blocks, if maybe 1 3RR at the most. However this was apparently not persuasive enough:

• SixOfDiamonds: 1 3RR
• SevenOfDiamonds: no disruption blocks
• N4GMiraflores: no blocks
• I Write Stuff: no blocks
• Grimlight: no blocks

42 articles created in total, 1 case of 3RR which took place in June of 2007, almost a year ago. Please stop attempting to slander me and label me as disruptive as the evidence seems to state otherwise. -SevenOfDiamonds / I Write Stuff / etc.

Please, you're a leftist from New York, who works during a strange 9am to 5pm schedule and uses "typo" as an edit summary. And "lol" -- I mean, that's not even a real word. You're continued claims that there could be more than one such person is simply unpossible! And besides, the hard core right wing editors said you were disruptive -- and surely their completely politically unbiased viewpoint was taken into account by the Arbs in addition to those amazing coincidences. Creating articles is nothing more than a clever ruse. Be gone ye vandal!! -- Kendrick7 ^talk 05:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Kendrick7, why are you facilitating trolling by a banned user? In an ArbCom case at that? Not wise. - Merzbow ( talk) 17:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC) reply

There's no trolling there that I can see. As this case hinges on banning certain users as the sock of an other user on very circumstantial evidence, that a user banned previously under such a rubric is still loudly proclaiming his innocence seems like an important part of the debate, especially as the political circumstances are remarkably similar. Per WP:IAR I'll take my chances. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 18:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm rather disappointed with the number of people who are supporting this, even though I'm fairly certain the Arbs will not adopt it. One of the biggest problems with the article in question is the abuse of Wikipedia process by editors on both sides of the dispute. I would love to hear an argument from those who support this proposal as to how a proposal based on no evidence whatsoever, which relates purely to content, and which is dropped into the middle of a case which deals solely with sockpuppetry (and which therefore has not brought in the relevant parties nor the relevant issues for discussion) is remotely appropriate. For those supporting this proposal, I know this is what you would like to have happen with the article. Fine. That does not mean it is acceptable as a remedy in this case.

The flip side of this would be a proposal along the lines of "restore the deletions made by William M. Connolley, JzG, whomever else." It would make about as much sense as this does in terms of the scope of the case. Were that to be proposed, I'm sure some who support the article would support it, while those who oppose the article would justly cry foul and say it was outside the scope. It would be nice if, instead, editors on both sides could stop using ArbCom, ANI, Checkuser requests, etc. as a means to go after the other side and win a content dispute (I'm not at all saying that this case in general is that, just this specific proposal and some of the things which have been/are being done by the article's supporters).

If those who support Raymond's proposal can explain how they feel this is an appropriate remedy despite the fact that this is a sockpuppet case and no evidence or finding of fact supports the remedy in question (normally you'd want that) then I'm all ears. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I've given other reasons for why I've rejected it at the recent request for arbitration. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Some remedies are now being proposed which relate to the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States‎ rather than issues surrounding Giovanni33. Undoubtedly discussion of these proposals will suck up a lot of oxygen here. Before we get too far down the line, could someone from the committee provide a bit of guidance as to how they are viewing the scope of the case, assuming this has been discussed on the ArbCom list serv? Is the committee open to remedies dealing with the article in question, or is it more than likely (or certain) that this case will just deal with sockpuppetry? If that's unclear at this point I understand, but any guidance from the committee on this question would be very helpful. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd like to note that article stuff applying globally is kinda outside the scope of this case, which is supposed to specifically be about G33. If it's going to be broadened, then a whole bunch of people need to be added as participants. Jtrainor ( talk) 05:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

If I could kindly ask any member of ArbCom - and I do not mean to be at all disruptive with this question - why so much time to come to a decision? This has been open for over a month, with little intent to move forward. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 19:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Agreed William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

From what I can see the arbitrators have not completed work on other cases pending action. I suppose they are busy, but hopefully they will be able to make some time to move this case forward. John Smith's ( talk) 22:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The reason is because there is more evidence in the works. Giovanni33 is interested in a video conference, and I am OK with that proposal.I have written the Arbcom, per below, and await their instructions:

"From:... Subject: My Identity.. To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, May 26, 2008, 2:45 PM

To Arbitration Committee,

Good day, This is with regards with my account in Wikipedia as DrGabriela that has been suspecting as the sockpuppet of Giovanni33 . I will appreciate if you will let me know if what kind of evidence do I need to provide and if you will give me recommendations to do just to clear up this issue and prove that I am not a sockpuppet.I am willing to give my personal information as long as it will be kept private. I am hoping for your kind consideration.

Respectfully yours, DrGabriela" DrGabriela ( talk) 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Anyways, it's in voting now. Jtrainor ( talk) 11:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

So it is. Hurrah William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

You've got guts to continue to tag-team revert war with G33 and Olawe on articles you've never showed up on before, DrGabriela. For the zillionth time, even if you are a different person, if you act as nothing more than his meatpuppet, you will be banned as one per WP:SOCK. - Merzbow ( talk) 17:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course, the good doctor has been an editor in good standing for a year and has edited other articles. But, it's good to know, this case notwithstanding, that the sockpuppetry witchhunts will continue. [9] This topic area just wouldn't be the same without it. Lower case "ok" -- oh noes! -- Kendrick7 ^talk 18:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

You're being misrepresenting the facts. The account's first edit was on 20th July 2007. After that day, one edit was made on 23rd - and then the account became totally inactive. That is hardly being an editor for a year - that's being an editor for less than a week. Then when Giovanni got into trouble, the "good doctor" suddenly started helping him out on a brace of articles the account had not previously edited. Nothing unusual there at all.... John Smith's ( talk) 18:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Not quite true, John. I "get in trouble" often at many articles, yet the good Dr., nor anyone else "shows up" to support me. See recently Totalitarianism. No, they only show up on the terrorism/Atomic bominging issue, which is obviously something they are interested in. As far as using "ok," all I can say it fits in perfectly with the rest of the so-called evidence: extremely weak cherry picking of very common English language. You might as well use the fact that they all speak English as "evidence" that we are the same!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni33 ( talk • contribs)

Coming to help you out after an absence of several months (having edited a handful of times before) is hardly normal behaviour. And if they followed you around every article that would be so obvious even you couldn't wheedle your way out of it. You push the lines as far as you think you can get away with it, but sometimes you still get caught with your trousers down. John Smith's ( talk) 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The editor picked up at New People's Army right where they had left off, and aside from taking G33's side on the Category:Terrorism articles, also edited articles related to the Philippines and medicine where G33 has never edited. So, Merbow's statement that the editor acted "as nothing more than his meatpuppet" isn't true, regardless of how clever a sleeper sock this might actually be. I would hope the Arbs would be willing to let DrGabriela provide whatever evidence would satisfy them. But I guess moving forward to make way for the "Olawe is G33 based on lowercase ok" case is perhaps prudent also. :sigh: -- Kendrick7 ^talk 19:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

One of a thousand other pieces of evidence, although quite an amusing one. I suppose it's also coincidental that both the "good doctor" and the "only slightly grammatically-challenged Hawaiian" both returned to editing on 6/14, having edited nothing else since 5/25, for no other apparent purpose than to support G33 with reverts. Is that coincidence number 2113 or 2114? I lost track... - Merzbow ( talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Right, and yet given the traceroute of Olawe's self-professed IP, [10] I'm left wondering how G33 gets back and forth from Hawaii so quickly. Just another bit of messy evidence you can conveniently ignore somehow, I'm sure. Correlation is causation, right? You are surely just as correct about Olawe as you've been about everything else, but, still, if we start banning contributors who can bend time and space, our whole endeavor might turn into a Dean Koontz novel. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Before commenting on details of an Arbitration case, perhaps you should read the evidence presented, no? Because if you did, you would know that dear Olawe is on the same dial-up ISP as SGR (with access numbers across the country), and appeared after this case was opened, giving G33 an obvious motive to make his next sock appear to be from outside the Bay Area. (Maybe we should start a collection to pay for poor broke Olawe to get cable Internet, which is cheap and widely available in Hawaii)? - Merzbow ( talk) 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

No, no -- popsite is just the brand of modem, sold by PAETEC Holding Corp.: "Popsite.net is the reverse DNS for our dial-up equipment accross[sic] the country." [11] It's still an Hawaiian ISP upstream. [12] Anyway, I doubt cable modem access is widely available on all the islands of Hawaii. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 18:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

A brand of modem? Err, no; looks like it's time for a lesson on Internet topology. PAETEC owns and operates a network of dial-up access numbers across the country, and resells access to smaller ISPs. Any person signed up to one of those smaller ISPs dials into a PAETEC number and gets an IP that resolves to a popsite.net domain. They can also dial-into any other PAETEC number nationwide, and sign-in. Since the vast majority of those still left on dialup get their access through the major name-brand ISPs like EarthLink, this significantly narrows the range of providers that Olawe and SGR can be on.

And Aloha.net is not Olawe's ISP - the list of PAETEC access numbers (including some in Hawaii) is here, Aloha.net's list is here; they are different, and Aloha.net does not list any access numbers for mainland access (except for a single expensive 866 number), as they surely would if they were part of PAETEC's network. Aloha.net is likely in the tracert because Aloha.net's parent company, Pacific LightNet, is reselling backbone access to PAETEC in Hawaii; according to PLNI's site, they do own a backbone connecting Hawaii's islands, and are likely the only company that does, given how hellishly expensive it is laying undersea cable. - Merzbow ( talk) 02:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Above excerpted from another Giovanni33 post in the main workshop, since I doubt anyone who doesn't have to wants to read through Giovanni33's excessively verbose postings.

Let the record show that Giovanni33 is making legal threats right after saying he isn't making legal threats. Jtrainor ( talk) 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It would be wise for G33 to further clarify this statement by specifically ruling out legal action. - Merzbow ( talk) 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Fat chance. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 21:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately I think that Giovanni has made it clear that he will do nothing of the sort. John Smith's ( talk) 21:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

WP:THREAT is rather (OK extremely) vague about what constitutes a 'legal threat'. The above comments by G33 appear to be at the very far edge of what would be considered some type of legal threat as contemplated on WP:THREAT. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

There is no threat here, just a promise of determination to prove my case and see that there are no injustices which go uncorrected, i.e. that I do not intent do ever "give up" until the truth prevails and I stand vindicated. Notice no where do I even mention using the court of law, or filing a law suit, nor do I even mention particular legal theories or legal courses of action that could be taken, even though this would easy to do since I'm being advised by my lawyer who is interested in assisting me with establishing a sound legal footing in declaring my where abouts and establishing the independence of myself from these other editors in question. Simply saying I intent to make sure the truth comes out one way or another, does not necessarily imply at all any legal action. WP has an ability to correct itself, if it errs. For example Jimbo can overrule arbcom (there is always a first), and here are other mechanisms that can be employed in conjunction that I can think of, and then there are even more options. They never run out. No where am I threatening legal action; that would indeed be uncalled for, esp. at this stage where no harm or wrong has occurred. All this speculation is completely premature, and it's just more attempts to twist the meaning of what or did to try to make it into some kind of violation where none exist. Regarding this case, I've said it multiple times: we are all adults and we can arrive at an amicable resolution to adequately address any reasonable concerns as they impact the well being of the project. Giovanni33 ( talk) 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I see. So you have retained a lawyer, are "establishing a sound legal footing ", but that "does not *necessarily* imply at all any legal action". So all this talk of lawyers, legal papers and sound legal footing isn't meant to imply anything at all. Got it. I buy that 100%. Perhaps to avoid all this un-necessary confusion, you could make a blanket statement that you have ruled out taking legal action, and vow to not involve legal action should the arbcom find against you? That would certainly be an easy way to avoid this silly misunderstanding no? Of course you might want to consult with your attorney before making such a statement on such a trivial misundertanding. Dman727 ( talk) 02:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The above comment from G33 is less far from the far edge of what WP:THREAT seems to be talking about, however Wikipedia does not require loyalty oaths from its editors promising never to take legal action against Wikipedia under any circumstances. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Naturally. I wouldn't want to imply that G33 has any obligation to do, well anything. The opportunity to clear up what may be a mis-undertanding is 100% optional. Dman727 ( talk) 02:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

G33 likes chattering. When unable to do so on article talk pages, he is reduced to the nonsense above. Ignore him. He won't stop, of course, but it will be fun to watch him chattering to himself William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Calling it nonsense doesn't make it so. As far as what you find "fun," that is noted but not very interesting or relevant except it shows an absence of appreciation for the gravity of this case. Giovanni33 ( talk) 19:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Stop beating around the bush. None of us here are fools-- you would not have mentioned legal action unless you were considering taking it, or unless you wished to use the threat of it to force action from others. It shows that you are becoming desperate. Jtrainor ( talk) 20:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I never did mention legal action. Stop making up stuff. I'm not interested in any loyalty oaths, either. What I did say has been very clear though, and none of it contained any legal threats. We are no where near the stage where anyone even has to consider resorting that as a remedy, so its really silly to keep bring it up. Wikipedida's internal process is more than able to resolve this matter in an amicable manner, and I have kept my faith in the wisdom of the arbcom to act in a judicious manner, safe-guarding what is best for the project that we all are here to help develop. Giovanni33 ( talk) 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you intend to pursue legal action if the arbcom rules against you or not? Answer yes or no, and use one paragraph or less. Jtrainor ( talk) 00:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I've already answered that. Its way too premature to even have that kind of intention; the facts of this case to not rise to such a level of conflict. So no, at this time I have no such intentions, and I do think that this can be resolved using Wikipedia's own internal processes. As I said, I'm keeping good faith in the project, for the good of the project. I believe in the committee. I'm sure there will be no need to go over and beyond the existing, established methods of dispute resolution to find an amicable solution to all parties about the concerns this case raises; the existing process can make sure that truth, fairness, and a good decision results, and I am determined do what I can to help, as needed, and per advice and guidance I receive from trusted admins. Of course, one should never rule out any legitimate and reasonable method: I embrace whatever it will take to see that truth and justice prevail, no matter how much effort it may take. How and what form this takes all depends on the circumstances. The circumstances now dictate that I listen to trusted admins and do my best to show that the charges against me are false and predicated upon very weak evidence (its vs it's, lets vs let's), and that there are credible alternative explanations that leave me rather innocent. I'm not sure how many times I need to say this. I suggest we both go to improving article content and stop beating the dead horse. Giovanni33 ( talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, that's not a "NO". Dman727 ( talk) 15:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Stop dissembling. You're not going to be able to cover this up by blowing smoke. Jtrainor ( talk) 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

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

I've listed more quotes on the evidence page. -- DHeyward ( talk) 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll save everyone the trouble: That account is indeed my socket-puppet. You are a little behind in the times as this is from 2006, and I've long ago admitted to this, and have done so several times. I have no returned to any such behaviors since. I can see you want to see me retried for transgressions dating from when I first joined WP in 2006 that have already been resolved, but I don't think this is the basis of this arbcom case. It does say more about you and this case, indirectly, that there is nothing here except this ancient stuff of 2 years ago where I already admitted to wrong doings, but which the community has forgiven so it should be moot and irrelevant. Giovanni33 ( talk) 19:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't bring it here to accuse you of being Professor33. I think it's well settled that you were the sockmaster. I find it enlightening that all the same tactics you are trying now, you tried then including the threats and the offer to prove your identity as well as a few more. -- DHeyward ( talk) 19:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

So in other words you find it enlightening that I would be consistent and act like myself? Nothing too enlightening there..hehe The only difference is that this time I am innocent. You keep bringing up facts from 2006 and it seems this is just to poison the well more than anything else. In fact you even opposed me making bold the 2006 year from my block log you listed, and then reverted even my question on your talk page asking about what objection was. Care to answer that, or will you keep ignoring it? Giovanni33 ( talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Giovanni, you don't get to call out anyone about censoring their user talk page when you remove comments from anyone you don't like on yours and call it trolling. Jtrainor ( talk) 21:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply