886:; 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.
926:
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.
906:
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.
642:'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 Knowledge 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.
573:
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
744:
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.
726:
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.
875:
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.
879:
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.
894:
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.
386:
925:
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
897:
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
878:
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
725:
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 -
680:
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
656:
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
572:
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
461:
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
893:
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
754:
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
743:
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
634:
me – I do not know if other wikipedians have been victims of this. He has had many last chances (for example his promise to reform in 2006 and again in 2007), yet keeps falling into trouble and gaming the system. Giovanni has shown he understands the rules well and will try to stay within the letter
587:. 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
914:
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
909:
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.
874:
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
849:
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
739:
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
409:
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
1284:
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
1221:
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
950:
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
905:
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
629:
it is clear that Giovanni has fallen into conflict with many people on many articles since being here – I am just one of these people. When Giovanni thinks he is right, he will try to veto any changes to a page or push his choice even if he is the only person doing so. People he disagrees with are
929:
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
856:
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
695:
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
1018:
1) Knowledge 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
889:
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
784:
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
930:
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.
901:
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
618:
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
503:
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
394:
but John Smith's rejected that as false parity. It is not easy to craft an effective consensus solution for how to handle any difficult but long-established editor, so I offer this to the Committee. Upon posting I will give both Giovanni33 and John Smith's limited unblocks for the purpose of
447:
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.
416:
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
691:
Bigtimepeace, many users sadly edit-war on Knowledge. 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
711:
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.
898:
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:
882:
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
1305:
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
763:
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?
696:
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.
920:
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
902:
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.
819:
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.
74:
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
389:
discussion failed to reach consensus. I gave Giovanni33 an unblock offer that let him craft lesser remedies and he proposed two that would both have included reciprocal remedies for John Smith's, so I suggested
1001:
91:
489:
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.
944:
681:
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.
967:
988:
667:
El_C, whenever anyone on Knowledge 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.
1502:(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
646:
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.
976:
958:
805:
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.
87:
80:
1330:
657:
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 Knowledge, we might not be here.
485:
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
740:
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.
325:
1325:
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.
619:
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.
1563:
730:
671:
76:
839:
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?
1515:
1490:
1466:
385:
and implemented an indefinite block. This turned out to be a controversial decision. Although the block withstood a request for review, both the ANI discussion and the
1379:
492:
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.
311:
1592:
1446:
1409:
861:
843:
789:
768:
748:
719:
685:
661:
650:
470:
456:
425:
352:
257:
934:
599:
543:
534:
521:
512:
884:
817:
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.
347:
1455:
1354:
1475:
915:
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.
430:
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
403:
1503:
1459:
581:, 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...
853:
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.
778:
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
630:
often characterised as being “right-wing” and/or dismissed as unworthy of discussion/his good faith, even if they're outsiders/non-partisan. He has also
64:
1152:
1087:
562:
497:
910:
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:
1482:
1479:
614:
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
1536:
382:
330:
102:
58:
52:
638:
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
1422:
578:
692:
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.
445:
443:
441:
439:
435:
431:
1255:
1122:
179:
46:
899:
517:
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.
1375:
shows no edits by Giovanni in the last month. For "fail to discuss a content reversion", I have blocked Giovanni for 24 hours. –
1192:
1057:
335:
131:
90:. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at
809:
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.
362:
1320:
504:
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
1418:
1610:
539:
With respect to John Smith's latest comment directed at myself: at no time did I use sarcasm, nor am I undermining anyone.
527:
828:
610:
First of all, I would like to rebut El_C's misrepresentations of my attempt to resolve the Giovanni matter. I did not say
605:
1249:
1116:
836:
612:
provide me with a highly advantageous remedy, or I'll be taking it to arbitration where Giovanni will be banned for sure.
173:
357:
891:
555:
17:
568:
I will withdraw at Giovanni request, of course. Perhaps it would have been prudent to wait for him to return. Whereas
832:
835:. Forgot about that, didn't you? Also I do have an interest in things like the Holocaust (I did make an improvement
755:
I be "judged" at the same time as he was. I was prepared for a discussion about myself but only if it was separate.
374:
1385:
1186:
1051:
125:
1368:
1360:
866:
699:
You complain I won't admit responsibility whilst at least Giovanni has, but I don't believe that is the case. As
1372:
715:
I don't think any admin can place someone on parole - there's an official process that needs to be adhered to.
583:
1279:
1146:
824:
577:
not a bi-lateral undertaking, was, likewise, questionable. This, culminating with her linking to and then, to
203:
939:
378:
1267:
1134:
487:
inclined / willing to give John Smith the upper hand in any settlement, which he promptly took advantage of.
191:
1532:
1528:
275:
1216:
1081:
155:
1273:
1140:
368:
197:
1204:
1069:
326:
Talk:Mao: The Unknown_Story#Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link and mention of Professor Gao
143:
704:
287:
221:
86:
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at
1232:
1261:
1128:
480:
305:
293:
185:
1210:
1075:
319:
281:
233:
149:
505:
1540:
1243:
1110:
709:
This appears to be an effort by Giovanni33 to shirk responsibility by blaming it all on one user.
299:
251:
239:
167:
591:
wish for me to find something else to do, I don't mind at all. There seems to be no shortage of
1198:
1063:
994:
227:
137:
1300:
592:
1169:
985:
245:
1180:
1045:
554:
What I find also of interest is that Durova opted not to wait for Giovanni33 to answer her
119:
857:
some sort of relationship above the sort of day-to-day interaction one sees on Knowledge.
759:
If he only reverts Gio's edits once, is this considered gaming Gio's revert parole or not?
101:
as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at
8:
1029:
964:
1099:
1511:
1238:
1105:
955:
858:
840:
786:
765:
745:
727:
716:
682:
668:
658:
647:
162:
79:, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
1329:
Both John Smith's and Giovanni33 warned on pushing the limit of the 1 week limit. See
1585:
1499:
1439:
1402:
1364:
1347:
982:
269:
1568:
1520:
1495:
1471:
1451:
1414:
1175:
1040:
931:
868:
114:
438:
that he change course to a more productive direction. These responses followed.
1571:
banned by the community. See talk page and links to pertinent threads therein.
1295:
1034:
813:
I was happy to stop, until Giovanni started vetoing everything I wanted to do.
508:, or I'll be taking it to arbitration where Giovanni will be banned for sure.'
215:
526:
I'm not sure what John Smith expects me to retract. My interpretation of his "
1604:
1508:
1486:
1463:
1008:
973:
952:
639:
626:
391:
1454:
blocked for 24 hours for 2 reverts in quick succession and edit warring on
1376:
700:
615:
1498:
blocked for 1 week for not discussing his last two reverts to the lead at
108:
1574:
1428:
1391:
1336:
1164:
464:
450:
419:
397:
264:
1331:
Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Giovanni33
331:
Talk:Cultural Revolution#Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link
1524:
1013:
1384:
Final warning to both John Smith's and Giovanni33, see the thread in
635:
of the law, whilst going against it in spirit in every possible way.
631:
596:
559:
540:
531:
518:
509:
494:
412:
210:
336:
Talk:Jung Chang#Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link
1417:
blocked 72 hours for 2 reverts in a week and edit warring on
103:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification
1367:. On January 8, he reverted to reinstate these changes with
622:
I would like El_C to retract his comments on these points.
1523:
blocked for one month for using socks to revert twice on
353:
Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2
1474:
blocked for 72 hours for 2 reverts in about 36 hours on
850:
with you. You should not label people in that fashion.
348:
Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story
1456:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop
945:
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)
823:
By the way, Hong, you've wikistalked yourself such as
1476:
Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism
1285:
duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
1222:
duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
1151:has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring (
1086:has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring (
530:"? Well, sorry, but I'm not prepared to do that.
1602:
1537:Knowledge:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Giovanni33
97:Once the case is closed, editors may add to the
1005:(vote counts and comments are there as well)
375:WP:ANI#User:Giovanni33:_patience_exhausted.3F
462:would probably have brought it here sooner.
1307:
98:
1315:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
1290:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
1227:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
1159:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
1094:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
1024:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
83:. Evidence is more useful than comments.
593:temporarily dead Japanese Prime Ministers
558:about seeking an informal solution. Why?
625:As to the case, from the discussions on
703:said in regards to Giovanni's proposal
14:
1603:
1419:State terrorism and the United States
1019:resources and destructive to morale.
417:reputation, certainly not this one.
410:block on Giovanni33 I replied that
23:
774:Limiting a revert restriction for
24:
18:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration
1622:
951:all involved parties, of course.
30:on 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
392:community enforceable mediation
38:on 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
989:18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
977:15:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
968:02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
959:11:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
935:17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
890:would not be here today. See:
862:09:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
844:22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
790:21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
769:20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
749:21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
731:06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
720:21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
686:18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
672:11:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
662:09:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
651:09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
600:21:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
595:for me to attend to, instead.
563:09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
544:11:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
535:09:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
522:06:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
513:04:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
498:03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
471:21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
457:19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
426:04:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
404:03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
13:
1:
1410:03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
7:
1611:Knowledge arbitration cases
1380:22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1355:02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
10:
1627:
1535:with a sock (confirmed at
1447:20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
795:Just a restriction on the
688:_________________________
677:_________________________
506:highly advantageous remedy
44:Watchlist all case pages:
1516:04:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1491:21:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
606:Statement by John Smith's
1593:01:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
1564:19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
1467:00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
1359:On Jan 2, Giovanni made
377:I reviewed Giovanni33's
1308:#Log of blocks and bans
1233:John Smith's restricted
1000:All numbering based on
751:______________________
736:______________________
99:#Log of blocks and bans
1321:Log of blocks and bans
799:of you from reverting
383:confirmed sockpuppetry
1170:Giovanni33 restricted
940:Preliminary decisions
1301:Enforcement by block
803:edits on any article
320:Requests for comment
369:Statement by Durova
1002:/Proposed decision
92:/Proposed decision
1531:as Giovanni, and
1373:talk page history
481:Statement by El C
71:
1618:
1591:
1588:
1582:
1560:
1558:
1556:
1554:
1552:
1500:New antisemitism
1445:
1442:
1436:
1408:
1405:
1399:
1365:New antisemitism
1353:
1350:
1344:
1283:
1256:deleted contribs
1220:
1193:deleted contribs
1150:
1123:deleted contribs
1085:
1058:deleted contribs
1030:Findings of fact
584:view it yourself
469:
467:
455:
453:
424:
422:
402:
400:
315:
261:
207:
180:deleted contribs
159:
132:deleted contribs
109:Involved parties
70:
69:
42:
1626:
1625:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1601:
1600:
1586:
1575:
1572:
1569:User:Giovanni33
1550:
1548:
1546:
1544:
1542:
1521:User:Giovanni33
1496:User:Giovanni33
1472:User:Giovanni33
1452:User:Giovanni33
1440:
1429:
1426:
1415:User:Giovanni33
1403:
1392:
1389:
1348:
1337:
1334:
1323:
1303:
1298:
1241:
1235:
1178:
1172:
1167:
1108:
1102:
1043:
1037:
1032:
1016:
1011:
997:
947:
942:
872:
608:
579:my astonishment
483:
465:
463:
451:
449:
420:
418:
398:
396:
373:In response to
371:
322:
267:
213:
165:
117:
111:
72:
45:
43:
39:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1624:
1614:
1613:
1598:
1596:
1595:
1566:
1518:
1514:
1493:
1469:
1449:
1412:
1382:
1357:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1101:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1007:
996:
995:Final decision
993:
992:
991:
979:
970:
961:
946:
943:
941:
938:
923:
922:
917:
916:
871:
865:
734:
733:
675:
674:
654:
653:
607:
604:
603:
602:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
537:
482:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
370:
367:
366:
365:
360:
355:
350:
344:
343:
339:
338:
333:
328:
321:
318:
317:
316:
262:
208:
160:
110:
107:
41:
34:
26:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1623:
1612:
1609:
1608:
1606:
1599:
1594:
1589:
1583:
1581:
1579:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1562:
1561:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1494:
1492:
1489:
1488:
1483:
1480:
1477:
1473:
1470:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1450:
1448:
1443:
1437:
1435:
1433:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1413:
1411:
1406:
1400:
1398:
1396:
1387:
1383:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1356:
1351:
1345:
1343:
1341:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1316:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1309:
1291:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1281:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1240:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1191:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1177:
1160:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1153:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1124:
1121:
1118:
1115:
1112:
1107:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1088:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1042:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1006:
1004:
1003:
990:
987:
984:
980:
978:
975:
971:
969:
966:
962:
960:
957:
954:
949:
948:
937:
936:
933:
927:
919:
918:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
900:
895:
892:
887:
885:
880:
876:
870:
867:Statement by
864:
863:
860:
854:
851:
847:
845:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
821:
818:
814:
811:
810:
806:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
788:
783:
779:
775:
771:
770:
767:
761:
760:
756:
752:
750:
747:
741:
737:
732:
729:
724:
723:
722:
721:
718:
713:
710:
706:
702:
697:
693:
689:
687:
684:
678:
673:
670:
666:
665:
664:
663:
660:
652:
649:
645:
644:
643:
641:
640:User:DHeyward
636:
633:
628:
623:
620:
617:
613:
601:
598:
594:
590:
586:
585:
580:
576:
571:
567:
566:
565:
564:
561:
557:
545:
542:
538:
536:
533:
529:
525:
524:
523:
520:
516:
515:
514:
511:
507:
502:
501:
500:
499:
496:
493:
488:
472:
468:
460:
459:
458:
454:
446:
444:
442:
440:
437:
433:
429:
428:
427:
423:
415:
414:
408:
407:
406:
405:
401:
395:arbitration.
393:
388:
384:
380:
376:
364:
361:
359:
358:Third opinion
356:
354:
351:
349:
346:
345:
341:
340:
337:
334:
332:
329:
327:
324:
323:
313:
310:
307:
304:
301:
298:
295:
292:
289:
286:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
266:
263:
259:
256:
253:
250:
247:
244:
241:
238:
235:
232:
229:
226:
223:
220:
217:
212:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
164:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
124:
121:
116:
113:
112:
106:
104:
100:
95:
93:
89:
84:
82:
78:
68:
67:
62:
61:
56:
55:
50:
49:
40:
37:
32:
29:
19:
1597:
1577:
1576:
1541:
1485:
1431:
1430:
1394:
1393:
1339:
1338:
1324:
1314:
1304:
1289:
1276:
1270:
1264:
1258:
1252:
1246:
1239:John Smith's
1236:
1226:
1213:
1207:
1201:
1195:
1189:
1183:
1173:
1158:
1143:
1137:
1131:
1125:
1119:
1113:
1106:John Smith's
1103:
1100:John Smith's
1093:
1078:
1072:
1066:
1060:
1054:
1048:
1038:
1023:
1017:
999:
998:
928:
924:
908:
904:
896:
888:
881:
877:
873:
859:John Smith's
855:
852:
848:
841:John Smith's
822:
816:
815:
812:
808:
807:
802:
801:each other's
798:
794:
793:
787:John Smith's
781:
777:
773:
772:
766:John Smith's
762:
758:
757:
753:
746:John Smith's
742:
738:
735:
728:John Smith's
717:John Smith's
714:
708:
701:User:Endroit
698:
694:
690:
683:John Smith's
679:
676:
669:John Smith's
659:John Smith's
655:
648:John Smith's
637:
624:
621:
616:User:Endroit
611:
609:
589:both parties
588:
582:
574:
569:
553:
491:
486:
484:
411:
372:
308:
302:
296:
290:
284:
278:
272:
254:
248:
242:
236:
230:
224:
218:
200:
194:
188:
182:
176:
170:
163:John Smith's
152:
146:
140:
134:
128:
122:
96:
85:
73:
65:
59:
53:
47:
35:
33:
27:
25:
1296:Enforcement
846:__________
632:wikistalked
288:protections
234:protections
36:Case Closed
28:Case Opened
1525:Glenn Beck
1274:block user
1268:filter log
1211:block user
1205:filter log
1176:Giovanni33
1141:block user
1135:filter log
1076:block user
1070:filter log
1041:Giovanni33
1035:Giovanni33
1009:Principles
972:Accept. --
932:Giovanni33
869:Giovanni33
363:Straw poll
300:page moves
246:page moves
198:block user
192:filter log
150:block user
144:filter log
115:Giovanni33
1386:this diff
1369:this edit
1361:this edit
1280:block log
1217:block log
1147:block log
1082:block log
1014:Consensus
436:requested
432:this post
413:tu quoque
379:block log
294:deletions
240:deletions
204:block log
156:block log
88:/Workshop
81:/Evidence
77:talk page
1605:Category
1487:MastCell
1464:Sam Korn
1250:contribs
1187:contribs
1165:Remedies
1117:contribs
1052:contribs
983:James F.
981:Accept.
974:jpgordon
963:Accept.
953:FloNight
575:a priori
556:question
276:contribs
222:contribs
174:contribs
126:contribs
1377:Quadell
785:abuse.
1458:. See
1421:. See
1371:. The
986:(talk)
965:Kirill
627:WP:ANI
466:Durova
452:Durova
421:Durova
399:Durova
306:rights
282:blocks
265:Durova
252:rights
228:blocks
1580:levse
1434:levse
1397:levse
1342:levse
921:good.
528:offer
342:Other
16:<
1587:Talk
1533:here
1529:Here
1512:khoi
1509:Khoi
1504:here
1460:here
1441:Talk
1423:here
1404:Talk
1349:Talk
1262:logs
1244:talk
1199:logs
1181:talk
1129:logs
1111:talk
1064:logs
1046:talk
837:here
833:here
831:and
829:here
825:here
797:both
705:here
597:El_C
560:El_C
541:El_C
532:El_C
519:El_C
510:El_C
495:El_C
381:and
270:talk
216:talk
211:El_C
186:logs
168:talk
138:logs
120:talk
1539:).
1484:).
1462:.
1363:to
1237:2)
1174:1)
1154:).
1104:2)
1089:).
1039:1)
956:♥♥♥
780:yet
776:you
387:CSN
312:RfA
258:RfA
94:.
1607::
1590:•
1584:•
1573:—
1559:te
1557:ai
1555:hw
1553:et
1551:tl
1549:os
1545:an
1543:Ry
1527:.
1506:.
1481:,
1444:•
1438:•
1427:—
1425:.
1407:•
1401:•
1390:—
1352:•
1346:•
1335:—
1310:.
827:,
707:,
434:I
105:.
63:,
57:,
51:,
1578:R
1547:P
1478:(
1432:R
1395:R
1388:.
1340:R
1333:.
1282:)
1277:·
1271:·
1265:·
1259:·
1253:·
1247:·
1242:(
1219:)
1214:·
1208:·
1202:·
1196:·
1190:·
1184:·
1179:(
1149:)
1144:·
1138:·
1132:·
1126:·
1120:·
1114:·
1109:(
1084:)
1079:·
1073:·
1067:·
1061:·
1055:·
1049:·
1044:(
782:.
570:I
314:)
309:·
303:·
297:·
291:·
285:·
279:·
273:·
268:(
260:)
255:·
249:·
243:·
237:·
231:·
225:·
219:·
214:(
206:)
201:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
177:·
171:·
166:(
158:)
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
129:·
123:·
118:(
66:4
60:3
54:2
48:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.