518:, a number of editors commented and you were the only one that kept insisted that you were being wikistalked. Getting back to you and Giovanni - well, when it comes to edit warring, it takes two to tango. You should know by now that nothing really justifies edit warring. You're saying that you edit warred because Gio was vetoing everything you wanted, and Gio is basically saying that he edit warred because you were POV pushing. I don't think admins really care for either of those reasons. As for possibly placing restrictions on you two, like I said, there's no guarantee that you won't game a possible 1RR restriction on Gio unless we spell out what the consequences are, and unless it applies to reverts you do to his edits on
82:
warring stops. This has been suggested by numerous parties and
Giovanni has basically agreed to it, while John Smith's has not. I think the evidence is clear that both of these users are consistently edit warring with one another, and I don't think the fact that John Smith's does not consent to being placed on some kind of parole is particularly relevant though it would have been nice. It is also not relevant to argue, as John Smith's does, that he would not have edit warred were it not for Giovanni. The far more basic truth is that he would not have edit warred if he had simply decided not to edit war, and I find his unwillingness to take responsibility for his own behavior (as Giovanni at least has on his
107:
the stipulation that you would be on 1RR parole but I could be wrong about that. Even if an admin could do that I do not think they should do so unilaterally, but only after a number of people had weighed in on the remedies proposed by
Giovanni and others and if the general opinion seemed to be that both of you should be placed on some sort of parole. I think this is the kind of thing that ideally could be worked out elsewhere, rather than in a lengthy and time consuming ArbCom case. I do continue to think that admitting some responsibility for your own edit warring would be a good idea.----
64:
increasing duration for repeated violation of that principle, but I don't see four blocks in a year as 'exhausting patience'... and if it were I can't see how it would be so for one and not the other. All that said, I don't see that an arbitration case is needed given that the community has already reviewed the matter extensively (twice) and found no consensus for action more drastic than blocking or revert parole - which
Giovanni33 indicated he would accept, but John Smith's rejects as implying a 'false parity' between their actions. --
787:
known him to be a dishonorable person given to the apparently malicious and underhanded dealings he seems to be accused of here on these pages. It's been my experience that he only seeks accuracy in the various articles to which he contributes, and when presented with reasonable evidence, is willing to reconsider his opinions. I'm sorry (but not surprised) to see a number of John's critics here giving evidence against him and suspecting him of other malfeasance. While he's been suspected of many things like
557:, and you have never edited those articles before that. But lest editors may misinterpret my comments, my intention is not to say that Gio himself is innocent. I am stating that John Smith's is just as guilty as Giovanni is, and if restrictions are to be placed on Giovanni, than we need to also spell out exactly what restrictions should be placed on John Smith's so that he doesn't game Gio's restrictions, noting that they've shown a tendency to edit war across multiple and unrelated articles.
633:
been disputing less so on the strengths of their arguments, but simply because they don't like each other. So no thanks, I won't be "taking over" Gio's place in these inane disputes. And yes, I have edit-warred with John Smith's. In fact, all three of my blocks were the result of edit warring with him. Which only goes to show that John Smith's doesn't just edit war with
Giovanni, he edit wars with other editors as well.
765:
other users here. As for the other users, I do not see that their conduct in this case is anywhere near as bad as
Giovanni's. He has had plenty of last chances, having had an indefinite block removed last year pending his good behaviour, discussions on WP:ANI, etc.. This is the first time the others' actions have formally been discussed, so I think it's a bit ridiculous for him to claim he is not the worst offender.
47:. There was no consensus there either. Now we've got this ArbCom case. Those discussions are worth reviewing for background. In the past year Giovanni33 has been blocked four times for edit warring, once for 3RR twelve months ago and three times for edit warring without breaching 3RR. Due to reversals (in one case by the blocking admin after 10 minutes) and adjustments these four blocks make up ten entries on his
402:
want. Granted, this describes a lot of editors, and even myself at times. But it becomes problematic when they start edit warring with each other, especially across multiple articles. John Smith's is not innocent of many of the accusations that have been thrown Gio's way. Wikistalking, edit warring, gaming the system, etc etc. I am neutral as to whether or not
86:) problematic. I'm not sure what the process would be exactly, though I think any admin could do it, but I think the 1RR or topic ban remedies should be imposed on both of these users. We simply don't need an ArbCom case to impose these remedies and to deal with these editors, both of whom make good contributions but need to be moved to separate corners.--
804:: I, too, would agree that the camaraderie between editors of a particular ideology merits investigation, as I think it's particularly demonstrated here. For example, while PalaceGuard008 cites the apparent connection between Endroit and John Smith's based on supposed anti-communist and/or pro-japanese leanings, there seems to be a similar link between
143:, and no reason to believe that the two are not open to further negotiation. It doesn't seem that the administrators involved put a lot of effort into reaching a mutual compromise. Perhaps they thought it has already been too much work, or will be, but there is no way arbitration is going to be less work.
623:
I would hardly call editing articles he's never edited before (and which were not named in the RfM) only to revert Gio's changes "confined to the dispute" they had. Like I said, John Smith's is just as guilty of many of the things that
Giovanni has been accused of - wikistalking, edit warring, etc.
786:
and know nothing of him other than what I've read on the various pages referenced here, I have had some dealing with John Smith's, so for what it's worth, I'd like to offer my own thoughts about his character. While he's obviously one who has strong opinions and sticks to them zealously, I've never
401:
I would say I'm pretty familiar with both
Giovanni and John Smith's behaviour, and have had conflicts with John Smith's himself. What I can say is - both editors are very stubborn and discussions on content disputes with them rarely lead anywhere except them still insisting on making the edits they
791:
and "gaming the system" (whatever that means), he really only seems to be guilty of some edit warring, and possibly of wikistalking. While I don't know
Giovanni33, his block tells me that he's quite prone to rule-breaking, and thus, of suspect trustworthiness. John Smith's, on the other hand, has
406:
sanctions should be placed on both editors, but John Smith's has seem to only offer his "assurance" not to game any possible revert parole that may be placed on
Giovanni. This is hardly good enough without outlining what, if any, consequences would be incurred if John Smith's chooses to break that
106:
Just to clarify in response to John Smith's reply to my statement above, I do not think he should be placed on some kind of probation without any discussion, as I said I think the discussion should continue. One of the posts on ANI gave me the impression that an admin could unblock both of you with
63:
have a more extensive block history prior to the past year, but John Smith's first edit was only a month before that year began (on 08/15/06)... his two other 3RR blocks (6 total) having been given in that first month. Both are certainly guilty of extensive edit warring and should receive blocks of
358:
occurred. You can provide the case against John Smith's, and we'll see if they have merit on their own, rather than being part of the ongoing content dispute. HongQiGong, noting that you have participated in this same content dispute (based on your edit-wars with John Smith's), I suggest that if
764:
I support arbitration in this matter because the activities of
Giovanni33 have become far too disruptive to go without comment. He starts edit wars with other users on flimsy pretexts and proves unreasonable when discussing matters under dispute. The evidence for this has been well documented by
632:
that once I found out the two editors were edit warring across multiple articles, I basically got tired of the dispute and largely left it alone for the two to figure it out amongst themselves. I support Gio's edit in that content dispute, but at that point I began to suspect that they were/have
490:
edits on any article, or at least unless you two actually agree with the reversion. 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. And I know I don't have room to talk because I've edit warred myself, but I've seen
419:
sanctions, or maybe not. But regardless, if sanctions are spelt out for Gio, let's do the same for John Smith's - exactly how many reverts is he allowed, exactly who is he not allowed to revert against, for how long, etc? These things need to be spelt out or it's basically pointless and open to
836:
I have to say that John Smith's is a pretty reasonable editor. Others might find him stubborn because he sometimes reverts vandalism that might not be considered a vandalism, but he does that just because either a source isn't provided or because it is edited by a user that has vandalized in the
739:
Clarification for User:John Smith's: I do not equate Communism with China. In my view, User:Endroit has an anti-China view, and User:John Smith's has an anti-Communist China view. The two are not equivalent but are related. Secondly, I am not trying to cast in a negative light any anti-Communist
81:
I think this was taken to ArbCom prematurely and I do not think the committee should take the case. There was an ongoing discussion on the matter which should continue. The best way to go in my opinion is to place Giovanni33 and John Smith's on 1RR parole and/or give them a topic ban so the edit
695:
This comment is strictly related only to User:Endroit's comments about camaraderie among editors with a certain political ideology. I agree wholeheartedly that the issue of political ideology extending into both content distpues and administrative action is one worthy of concern and further
185:
44:
491:
plenty of other editors who always discuss before reverting, or they impose 1RR on themselves without any problems. 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.
596:) are definitely not related, and you can see from the article histories that John Smith's first edits on both of these articles are to revert Giovanni's edits, which of course resulted in edit warring between the two. These reverts were done during their content dispute on
210:
Technically, there was NO 3RR VIOLATION. There is no "version being reverted to", so the "1st Revert" on top portion of the report may not even be a revert. The "4th Revert" on top was self-reverted, so that doesn't count. And the "3rd Revert" is unrelated to the first 2
444:
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
374:
2nd response to HongQiGong: I said "John Smith's overall disruptions were largely confined to the dispute" in reference to the larger picture. Also, as far as the content disputes go, if nobody is willing to step in and pursue
515:
355:
181:
816:. I note that link not because I criticise it, but for the sake of thoroughness - we shouldn't castigate one side for their links without also noting links on the other. Respectfully submitted, -
329:(the Americas). My question is, is this "comradery" among editors a friendly one? ... Or is it disruptive? Evidence of disruptive collaboration may be combined with the ongoing arbitration
753:
451:
article, not just a "list of previously agreed articles reserved for him". We've already seen how the two of you edit warred across multiple articles. Limiting a revert restriction for
514:: Yeah, I remember those reverts I did. Except I wasn't wikistalking. We were having a dispute on the use of BCE/BC, and those edits were related to that dispute. If you'll remember
121:
673:). Giovanni was blocked indefinitely, and has contested the block. I think now is the time for arbcom to investigate the behaviour of all involved parties, and sort this matter out. --
350:
In response to HongQiGong: I'll note your accusations in good faith. However, John Smith's overall disruptions were largely confined to the dispute which had been covered by an
278:, promised during an unrelated incident, is relevant here. Also, does this automatically imply that Giovanni33 & John Smith's penalties should not be on par with each other?
733:
387:
337:
59:. Based on this recent history I would have to say that there seems little reason why Giovanni33 would receive an indefinite block and John Smith's only 48 hours. Giovanni33
411:
game Gio's revert parole. Another thing is, while a revert parole can be finely-defined, what exactly does John Smith's "assurance" entail? If he only reverts Gio's edits
285:
Whether other recent incidents by Giovanni33, involving MONGO and others, should also be reviewed. The allegations were serious enough then, for them to request an RFCU at
100:
840:
I think, comparing Giovanni's and John's block logs, that Giovanni looks more like a disruptive editor although I have never gotten into a conflict with him in the past.--
572:
68:
152:
820:
648:
615:
537:
506:
474:
435:
40:
769:
670:
351:
260:
682:
367:
301:
309:
PS: This may (or may not) be relevant here: There seems to be a tight-knit collaboration among editors who support a particular political ideology, relating to
666:
846:
146:
I recommend rejecting the case for now. If the administrators involved can't get something worked out in a week, it will be simple to reinstate this RfA. ←
455:
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
330:
127:
227:
379:
on behalf of any indef-blocked editor, the dispute can end right there. Perhaps, HongQiGong, you just need to redefine the issues so that a proper
286:
553:. These two articles are topically completely unrelated to the dispute that was ongoing. You made those reverts during your dispute with Gio at
522:
article. Otherwise you could chase Gio to other articles and revert his changes - and we've seen you do it before - without stated consequence.
230:
at ANI that Giovanni33 may have been stalking John Smith's in early March, this year. In addition to that incident, a few days later, Giovanni33
766:
249:
239:
200:
166:
687:
73:
31:
774:
393:
248:
for a 3RR violation. Giovanni33 appears to have been stalking John Smith's ever since. And now in Giovanni33's controversial AN3 report,
584:. The two editors have edit-warred across multiple articles as early as April of this year. Some of the articles are notedly related to
759:
242:
245:
653:
231:
157:
545:: Come on John Smith's. Who's trying to game the system now? I'll link up again the two instances of wikistalking that I found -
55:
been blocked four times, all for 3RR violations - those four blocks, with reversals, accounting for six of the eight entries in his
543:
512:
139:
failed, other than that they clearly were not given enough time to succeed. There is a reasonable and good-faith counter-offer at
740:
China sentiment. There are many people who object to Communist regimes, and for good reason too. Thirdly, that I was involved on
17:
661:
I originally requested arbitration a while back, but it was rejected in favour of trying mediation. Since then, there have been
297:
Unfortunately, because the admins at ANI have disagreed as to where to go from here, intervention by Arbcom is strongly urged.--
480:
826:
629:
580:
In response to Endroit's uneven accusation of wikistalking on the part of Giovanni: I reviewed the old content dispute at
192:
was suggested but was rejected, as CEM probably cannot address all the issues either, and so all the issues ended up here.
447:
Fair enough. But it would make infinitely more sense if both of you are prevented from reverting each other's changes on
359:
Giovanni33 remains indef-blocked, you can take over in his place, to resolve the content disputes with John Smith's. (
275:
117:
96:
83:
720:, who, I hope, would not object to being characterised as anti-Communist China (see, for example, the last userbox on
26:
589:
546:
643:
610:
567:
532:
501:
469:
430:
788:
188:
lead to no further consensus, because multiple issues were involved which could not be appropriately addressed.
174:
56:
593:
550:
140:
744:
does not disqualify me from commenting - in fact, it probably better qualifies me to comment on the issue. --
170:
48:
136:
628:, and that's how I became aware that the two editors dislike of each other. And you can see at the end of
625:
581:
214:
The bottom "4 Reverts" occur over a span of 2 days rather than 24 hours, so isn't really a 3RR violation.
195:
Here, in more detail, are some of the things which I believe to be the issues for this Arbitration:
749:
729:
597:
585:
554:
217:
Giovanni33 apparently forced the issue at AN3 despite there being no 3RR violation technically.
113:
92:
65:
705:
709:
639:
606:
563:
528:
497:
465:
426:
8:
801:
745:
725:
689:
721:
717:
678:
235:
108:
87:
75:
415:, is this considered gaming Gio's revert parole or not? Maybe the two editors need
33:
817:
805:
783:
776:
741:
701:
634:
601:
558:
523:
492:
460:
421:
395:
204:
147:
380:
376:
360:
264:
189:
797:
713:
712:), along with his comrades in ideology. It is therefore interesting to see
697:
674:
655:
384:
364:
334:
298:
159:
165:
Caution: There are MULTIPLE issues involved here. One is related to the
841:
828:
813:
326:
173:(resulting in his perm-ban). And now a 3rd issue has emmerged, which is
322:
129:
43:. After that failed to achieve consensus the same proposal was made on
809:
318:
314:
39:
First there was a proposal that Giovanni33 be indefinitely banned on
135:
I do not understand why the proposals along the lines of those at
792:
proved himself (in my opinion) to be bullheaded but honorable.
482:: I didn't suggest a "complete ban". Just a restriction on the
310:
704:
with a clear pro-Japanese, anti-Chinese ideological slant (see
420:
argument and interpretation for any possible future offenses.
169:(resulting in a 48hr. block for both), the other is related to
207:
violation by Giovanni33 (Opinion seems to be split on this)
812:, both of seem to have at least a particular affinity for
261:
Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2
203:
was in good faith or in bad faith, and whether it was a
252:
Giovanni33 appeared to be wikistalking John Smith's.
289:in July (although sockpuppetry was not confirmed).
331:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds
224:Whether Giovanni33 was wikistalking other editors
624:Yes, I did participate in the content dispute at
317:. Within the umbrella of Marxism/Communism are
287:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33
263:needs to be resumed, perhaps in the form of
51:. In the same time period John Smith's has
363:may be pursued, as suggested by Durova.)--
175:John Smith's long term behavioral problems
171:Giovanni33's long term behavioral problems
238:just to revert-war, causing John Smith's
18:Knowledge talk:Requests for arbitration
14:
137:User talk:Giovanni33#An unblock offer
141:User talk:John Smith's#My suggestion
782:While I've had no interaction with
383:can be pursued with John Smith's.--
23:
716:rise so eagerly to the defence of
665:mediation cases that have failed (
516:the discussion you initated at ANI
24:
857:
588:. But a couple of the articles (
821:16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
770:11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
754:19:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
734:02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
683:18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
649:15:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
616:21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
573:15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
542:In response to this comment -
538:15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
511:In response to this comment -
507:22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
479:In response to this comment -
475:21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
436:20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
388:16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
368:13:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
338:17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
302:02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
201:AN3 report filed by Giovanni33
167:AN3 report filed by Giovanni33
153:02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
122:22:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
101:21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
69:18:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
13:
1:
7:
847:20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
626:Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story
582:Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story
10:
862:
696:examination. For example,
27:Statements by non-parties
700:repeatedly edit-wars on
590:The War Against the Jews
547:The War Against the Jews
267:as suggested by Durova.
232:wikistalked John Smith's
128:Statement by uninvolved
441:Replies to John Smith's
598:Mao: The Unknown Story
586:Mao: The Unknown Story
555:Mao: The Unknown Story
486:of you from reverting
760:Statement by Xmas1973
710:Talk:Senkaku Islands
594:Theory of everything
551:Theory of everything
621:Response to Endroit
274:Whether Giovanni's
722:User:John Smith's
718:User:John Smith's
681:
647:
630:this conversation
614:
571:
536:
505:
473:
434:
236:Type 45 destroyer
150:
120:
99:
853:
844:
831:
677:
637:
604:
561:
526:
495:
463:
424:
407:"assurance" and
276:self-imposed 2RR
259:Whether the RfM
149:
111:
90:
861:
860:
856:
855:
854:
852:
851:
850:
842:
834:
829:
784:User:Giovanni33
780:
762:
742:Senkaku Islands
702:Senkaku Islands
693:
659:
399:
325:(in Asia), and
250:HalfShadow said
163:
133:
79:
37:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
859:
833:
825:
824:
823:
802:PalaceGuard008
779:
773:
761:
758:
757:
756:
746:PalaceGuard008
726:PalaceGuard008
692:
690:PalaceGuard008
686:
658:
652:
398:
392:
391:
390:
371:
370:
346:
343:
342:
341:
340:
295:
294:
293:
292:
283:
282:
281:
272:
271:
270:
257:
256:
255:
253:
222:
221:
220:
218:
215:
212:
180:Unfortunately
162:
156:
132:
126:
125:
124:
78:
72:
36:
30:
28:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
858:
849:
848:
845:
838:
832:
822:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
794:
793:
790:
785:
778:
775:Statement by
772:
771:
768:
755:
751:
747:
743:
738:
737:
736:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
691:
685:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
657:
654:Statement by
651:
650:
645:
641:
636:
631:
627:
622:
618:
617:
612:
608:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
574:
569:
565:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
539:
534:
530:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
503:
499:
494:
489:
485:
481:
477:
476:
471:
467:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
432:
428:
423:
418:
414:
410:
405:
397:
394:Statement by
389:
386:
382:
378:
373:
372:
369:
366:
362:
357:
356:this incident
353:
349:
348:
347:
339:
336:
332:
328:
324:
321:(in Europe),
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
300:
291:
290:
288:
284:
280:
279:
277:
273:
269:
268:
266:
262:
258:
254:
251:
247:
244:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
225:
223:
219:
216:
213:
209:
208:
206:
202:
198:
197:
196:
193:
191:
187:
183:
178:
176:
172:
168:
161:
158:Statement by
155:
154:
151:
144:
142:
138:
131:
123:
119:
115:
110:
105:
104:
103:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
77:
74:Statement by
71:
70:
67:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
42:
35:
32:Statement by
19:
839:
835:
796:Comment for
789:sockpuppetry
781:
763:
714:User:Endroit
698:User:Endroit
694:
662:
660:
635:Hong Qi Gong
620:
619:
602:Hong Qi Gong
578:Wikistalking
577:
576:
559:Hong Qi Gong
541:
524:Hong Qi Gong
519:
510:
493:Hong Qi Gong
488:each other's
487:
483:
478:
461:Hong Qi Gong
456:
452:
448:
443:
440:
439:
422:Hong Qi Gong
416:
412:
408:
403:
400:
344:
296:
199:Whether the
194:
179:
164:
145:
134:
109:Bigtimepeace
88:Bigtimepeace
80:
76:Bigtimepeace
60:
52:
38:
827:Comment by
814:Che Guevara
688:Comment by
352:ongoing RfM
228:I mentioned
34:CBDunkerson
818:Folic Acid
806:Giovanni33
777:Folic_Acid
396:HongQiGong
345:__________
315:Communism
84:talk page
57:block log
49:block log
767:Xmas1973
644:Contribs
611:Contribs
568:Contribs
533:Contribs
502:Contribs
470:Contribs
431:Contribs
211:reverts.
205:WP:POINT
118:contribs
97:contribs
798:Endroit
706:history
675:Deskana
656:Deskana
385:Endroit
365:Endroit
335:Endroit
311:Marxism
299:Endroit
246:blocked
160:Endroit
837:past.
679:(talk)
549:, and
445:there?
381:WP:CEM
377:WP:CEM
361:WP:CEM
354:until
265:WP:CEM
190:WP:CEM
843:Jerry
830:Jerry
724:). --
417:equal
404:equal
234:into
130:BenB4
16:<
810:El C
808:and
800:and
750:Talk
730:Talk
708:and
640:Talk
607:Talk
592:and
564:Talk
529:Talk
498:Talk
484:both
466:Talk
427:Talk
413:once
409:does
319:Marx
313:and
184:and
114:talk
93:talk
61:does
53:also
41:AN/I
663:two
600:.
520:any
459:.
457:yet
453:you
449:any
333:.--
327:Che
323:Mao
243:get
186:CSN
182:ANI
148:Ben
116:|
95:|
66:CBD
45:CSN
752:)
732:)
669:,
642:-
609:-
566:-
531:-
500:-
468:-
429:-
240:to
177:.
112:|
91:|
748:(
728:(
671:2
667:1
646:)
638:(
613:)
605:(
570:)
562:(
535:)
527:(
504:)
496:(
472:)
464:(
433:)
425:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.