Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's: Difference between revisions

1136:; 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. 1176:

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.

1156:

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.

892:'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. 81: 823:

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

994:

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.

976:

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.

1125:

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.

1129:

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.

1144:

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.

636: 166: 1175:

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

1147:

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

1128:

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

975:

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 -

930:

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

906:

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

822:

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

711:

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

1143:

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

1004:

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

993:

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

884:

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

837:. 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 1164:

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

1159:

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.

1124:

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

1099:

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

989:

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

659:

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

1534:

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

1471:

1200:

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

1155:

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

879:

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

1179:

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

1106:

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

945:

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

1268:

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

1139:

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

1034:

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

1180:

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.

1151:

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

868:

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

753:

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

644:

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

697:

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.

666:

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

941:

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

961:

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.

1148:

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:

1132:

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

1555:

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

73: 212: 149: 1013:

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?

946:

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.

1170:

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

1152:

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.

161: 103: 41: 38: 1069:

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.

324:

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

639:

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

157: 99: 1251: 341: 739:

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.

1194: 931:

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.

1217: 1238: 917:

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.

896:

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.

1226: 1208: 25: 1711: 1055:

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.

337: 330: 1580: 907:

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.

735:

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

990:

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.

575: 1575:

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.

869:

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.

980: 921: 326: 1089:

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?

82: 635:

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

1629: 742:

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.

561: 1696: 1659: 1111: 1093: 1039: 1018: 998: 969: 935: 911: 900: 720: 706: 675: 265:#] blocked 72 hours for 2 reverts in a week and edit warring on ]. See . — ] • ] • 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 238:#Final warning to both John Smith's and Giovanni33, see the thread in . — ] • ] • 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 231:#Final warning to both John Smith's and Giovanni33, see the thread in . — ] • ] • 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 602: 507: 1184: 849: 793: 784: 771: 762: 1134: 1067:

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.

597: 1604: 1165:

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.

680:

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

653: 831:, 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... 1103:

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.

1028:

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

880:

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

314: 1402: 1337: 812: 747: 1160:

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:

864:

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

632: 580: 352: 308: 302: 888:

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

1672: 828: 942:

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.

695: 693: 691: 689: 685: 681: 1505: 1372: 429: 296: 1149: 767:

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.

1625:

shows no edits by Giovanni in the last month. For "fail to discuss a content reversion", I have blocked Giovanni for 24 hours. –

1442: 1307: 585: 381: 340:. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at 1059:

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.

612: 1570: 754:

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

1668: 789:

With respect to John Smith's latest comment directed at myself: at no time did I use sarcasm, nor am I undermining anyone.

777: 1078: 860:

First of all, I would like to rebut El_C's misrepresentations of my attempt to resolve the Giovanni matter. I did not say

855: 1499: 1366: 1086: 862:

provide me with a highly advantageous remedy, or I'll be taking it to arbitration where Giovanni will be banned for sure.

423: 607: 1141: 805: 17: 818:

I will withdraw at Giovanni request, of course. Perhaps it would have been prudent to wait for him to return. Whereas

1082: 1085:. Forgot about that, didn't you? Also I do have an interest in things like the Holocaust (I did make an improvement 1005:

I be "judged" at the same time as he was. I was prepared for a discussion about myself but only if it was separate.

624: 1635: 1436: 1301: 375: 1618: 1610: 1116: 949:

You complain I won't admit responsibility whilst at least Giovanni has, but I don't believe that is the case. As

1622: 965:

I don't think any admin can place someone on parole - there's an official process that needs to be adhered to.

833: 1529: 1396: 1074: 827:

not a bi-lateral undertaking, was, likewise, questionable. This, culminating with her linking to and then, to

453: 1189: 628: 1517: 1384: 737:

inclined / willing to give John Smith the upper hand in any settlement, which he promptly took advantage of.

441: 525: 184: 121: 1466: 1331: 405: 1523: 1390: 618: 447: 1454: 1319: 576:

Talk:Mao: The Unknown_Story#Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link and mention of Professor Gao

393: 954: 537: 471: 336:

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at

1482: 1511: 1378: 730: 555: 543: 435: 1460: 1325: 569: 531: 483: 399: 173: 110: 755: 1493: 1360: 959:

This appears to be an effort by Giovanni33 to shirk responsibility by blaming it all on one user.

549: 501: 489: 417: 841:

wish for me to find something else to do, I don't mind at all. There seems to be no shortage of

1448: 1313: 1244: 477: 387: 1550: 842: 1419: 1235: 495: 76: 1430: 1295: 804:

What I find also of interest is that Durova opted not to wait for Giovanni33 to answer her

369: 1107:

some sort of relationship above the sort of day-to-day interaction one sees on Knowledge.

1009:

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

351:

as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at

8: 1279: 1214: 1349: 1488: 1355: 1205: 1108: 1090: 1036: 1015: 995: 977: 966: 932: 918: 908: 897: 412: 329:, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at 1579:

Both John Smith's and Giovanni33 warned on pushing the limit of the 1 week limit. See

1689: 1652: 1614: 1597: 1232: 519: 180: 117: 26: 1664: 1425: 1290: 1181: 1118: 364: 688:

that he change course to a more productive direction. These responses followed.

1545: 1284: 1063:

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

758:, or I'll be taking it to arbitration where Giovanni will be banned for sure.' 465: 776:

I'm not sure what John Smith expects me to retract. My interpretation of his "

1705: 1258: 1223: 1202: 889: 876: 641: 57: 1626: 950: 865: 358: 1678: 1641: 1586: 1414: 714: 700: 669: 647: 514: 1581:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Giovanni33

581:

Talk:Cultural Revolution#Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link

1263: 1634:

Final warning to both John Smith's and Giovanni33, see the thread in

885:

of the law, whilst going against it in spirit in every possible way.

881: 846: 809: 790: 781: 768: 759: 744: 662: 460: 586:

Talk:Jung Chang#Request for Comment: Inclusion of external link

1667:

blocked 72 hours for 2 reverts in a week and edit warring on

353:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification

1617:. On January 8, he reverted to reinstate these changes with 872:

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

603:

Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2

1100:

with you. You should not label people in that fashion.

598:

Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story

1195:

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

1073:

By the way, Hong, you've wikistalked yourself such as

64: 1535:

duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

1472:

duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

1401:has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring ( 1336:has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring ( 780:"? Well, sorry, but I'm not prepared to do that. 1703: 347:Once the case is closed, editors may add to the 1255:(vote counts and comments are there as well) 625:WP:ANI#User:Giovanni33:_patience_exhausted.3F 712:would probably have brought it here sooner. 1557: 348: 202: 139: 1565:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1540:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1477:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1409:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1344:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1274:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 333:. Evidence is more useful than comments. 843:temporarily dead Japanese Prime Ministers 808:about seeking an informal solution. Why? 875:As to the case, from the discussions on 953:said in regards to Giovanni's proposal 14: 1704: 1669:State terrorism and the United States 1269:resources and destructive to morale. 100:Revision as of 03:15, 1 February 2008 667:reputation, certainly not this one. 90: 56: 660:block on Giovanni33 I replied that 272:Revision as of 20:00, 13 April 2008 211: 198: 172: 158:Revision as of 20:00, 13 April 2008 155: 148: 135: 109: 97: 23: 1024:Limiting a revert restriction for 274: 45: 18:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration 1723: 1201:all involved parties, of course. 280:on 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC) 642:community enforceable mediation 288:on 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1239:18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 1227:15:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 1218:02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 1209:11:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1185:17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 1140:would not be here today. See: 1112:09:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 1094:22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1040:21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1019:20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 999:21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 981:06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 970:21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 936:18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 922:11:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 912:09:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 901:09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 850:21:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 845:for me to attend to, instead. 813:09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 794:11:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 785:09:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 772:06:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 763:04:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 748:03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 721:21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 713: 707:19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 699: 676:04:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 668: 654:03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 646: 13: 1: 270: 261: 1660:03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 28:Browse history interactively 7: 1712:Knowledge Arbitration cases 1630:22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 1605:02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 10: 1728: 1697:20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 1045:Just a restriction on the 938:_________________________ 927:_________________________ 756:highly advantageous remedy 294:Watchlist all case pages: 200: 137: 856:Statement by John Smith's 259: 222: 219: 154: 96: 1609:On Jan 2, Giovanni made 627:I reviewed Giovanni33's 203:→‎Log of blocks and bans 140:→‎Log of blocks and bans 1558:#Log of blocks and bans 1483:John Smith's restricted 1250:All numbering based on 1001:______________________ 986:______________________ 349:#Log of blocks and bans 95: 1571:Log of blocks and bans 1049:of you from reverting 633:confirmed sockpuppetry 1420:Giovanni33 restricted 1190:Preliminary decisions 1551:Enforcement by block 1053:edits on any article 570:Requests for comment 619:Statement by Durova 1252:/Proposed decision 342:/Proposed decision 170: 107: 1623:talk page history 731:Statement by El C 321: 269: 156: 98: 78: 1719: 1695: 1692: 1686: 1658: 1655: 1649: 1615:New antisemitism 1603: 1600: 1594: 1533: 1506:deleted contribs 1470: 1443:deleted contribs 1400: 1373:deleted contribs 1335: 1308:deleted contribs 1280:Findings of fact 834:view it yourself 719: 717: 705: 703: 674: 672: 652: 650: 565: 511: 457: 430:deleted contribs 409: 382:deleted contribs 359:Involved parties 320: 319: 292: 209: 208: 206: 193: 188: 169: 164: 146: 145: 143: 130: 125: 106: 79: 70: 69: 67: 62: 60: 52: 49: 31: 29: 1727: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1702: 1701: 1690: 1679: 1676: 1665:User:Giovanni33 1653: 1642: 1639: 1598: 1587: 1584: 1573: 1553: 1548: 1491: 1485: 1428: 1422: 1417: 1358: 1352: 1293: 1287: 1282: 1266: 1261: 1247: 1197: 1192: 1122: 858: 829:my astonishment 733: 715: 701: 670: 648: 623:In response to 621: 572: 517: 463: 415: 367: 361: 322: 295: 293: 289: 281: 266: 255: 248: 239: 232: 215: 210: 201: 199: 197: 196: 195: 191: 178: 176: 171: 165: 160: 152: 150:← Previous edit 147: 138: 136: 134: 133: 132: 128: 115: 113: 108: 102: 94: 93: 92: 91: 89: 88: 87: 86: 85: 84: 75: 71: 65: 63: 58: 55: 53: 50: 48:Content deleted 47: 44: 39:← Previous edit 36: 35: 34: 27: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1725: 1715: 1714: 1700: 1699: 1662: 1632: 1607: 1572: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1552: 1549: 1547: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1484: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1421: 1418: 1416: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1286: 1283: 1281: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1265: 1262: 1260: 1257: 1246: 1245:Final decision 1243: 1242: 1241: 1229: 1220: 1211: 1196: 1193: 1191: 1188: 1173: 1172: 1167: 1166: 1121: 1115: 984: 983: 925: 924: 904: 903: 857: 854: 853: 852: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 787: 732: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 620: 617: 616: 615: 610: 605: 600: 594: 593: 589: 588: 583: 578: 571: 568: 567: 566: 512: 458: 410: 360: 357: 291: 284: 276: 273: 268: 267: 264: 262: 260: 257: 256: 253: 251: 249: 246: 244: 241: 240: 237: 235: 233: 230: 228: 225: 224: 221: 217: 216: 190: 189: 174: 153: 127: 126: 111: 80: 74: 72: 54: 46: 37: 33: 32: 24: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1724: 1713: 1710: 1709: 1707: 1698: 1693: 1687: 1685: 1683: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1663: 1661: 1656: 1650: 1648: 1646: 1637: 1633: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1606: 1601: 1595: 1593: 1591: 1582: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1566: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1559: 1541: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1531: 1528: 1525: 1522: 1519: 1516: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1490: 1478: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1468: 1465: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1444: 1441: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1427: 1410: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1403: 1398: 1395: 1392: 1389: 1386: 1383: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1368: 1365: 1362: 1357: 1345: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1338: 1333: 1330: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1315: 1312: 1309: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1297: 1292: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1256: 1254: 1253: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1230: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1219: 1216: 1212: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1199: 1198: 1187: 1186: 1183: 1177: 1169: 1168: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1150: 1145: 1142: 1137: 1135: 1130: 1126: 1120: 1117:Statement by 1114: 1113: 1110: 1104: 1101: 1097: 1095: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1071: 1068: 1064: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1041: 1038: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1020: 1017: 1011: 1010: 1006: 1002: 1000: 997: 991: 987: 982: 979: 974: 973: 972: 971: 968: 963: 960: 956: 952: 947: 943: 939: 937: 934: 928: 923: 920: 916: 915: 914: 913: 910: 902: 899: 895: 894: 893: 891: 890:User:DHeyward 886: 883: 878: 873: 870: 867: 863: 851: 848: 844: 840: 836: 835: 830: 826: 821: 817: 816: 815: 814: 811: 807: 795: 792: 788: 786: 783: 779: 775: 774: 773: 770: 766: 765: 764: 761: 757: 752: 751: 750: 749: 746: 743: 738: 722: 718: 710: 709: 708: 704: 696: 694: 692: 690: 687: 683: 679: 678: 677: 673: 665: 664: 658: 657: 656: 655: 651: 645:arbitration. 643: 638: 634: 630: 626: 614: 611: 609: 608:Third opinion 606: 604: 601: 599: 596: 595: 591: 590: 587: 584: 582: 579: 577: 574: 573: 563: 560: 557: 554: 551: 548: 545: 542: 539: 536: 533: 530: 527: 524: 521: 516: 513: 509: 506: 503: 500: 497: 494: 491: 488: 485: 482: 479: 476: 473: 470: 467: 462: 459: 455: 452: 449: 446: 443: 440: 437: 434: 431: 428: 425: 422: 419: 414: 411: 407: 404: 401: 398: 395: 392: 389: 386: 383: 380: 377: 374: 371: 366: 363: 362: 356: 354: 350: 345: 343: 339: 334: 332: 328: 318: 317: 312: 311: 306: 305: 300: 299: 290: 287: 282: 279: 271: 263: 258: 252: 250: 245: 243: 242: 236: 234: 229: 227: 226: 218: 214: 204: 186: 182: 177: 168: 163: 159: 151: 141: 123: 119: 114: 105: 101: 83: 68: 61: 51:Content added 43: 40: 30: 19: 1681: 1680: 1644: 1643: 1589: 1588: 1574: 1564: 1554: 1539: 1526: 1520: 1514: 1508: 1502: 1496: 1489:John Smith's 1486: 1476: 1463: 1457: 1451: 1445: 1439: 1433: 1423: 1408: 1393: 1387: 1381: 1375: 1369: 1363: 1356:John Smith's 1353: 1350:John Smith's 1343: 1328: 1322: 1316: 1310: 1304: 1298: 1288: 1273: 1267: 1249: 1248: 1178: 1174: 1158: 1154: 1146: 1138: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1109:John Smith's 1105: 1102: 1098: 1091:John Smith's 1072: 1066: 1065: 1062: 1058: 1057: 1052: 1051:each other's 1048: 1044: 1043: 1037:John Smith's 1031: 1027: 1023: 1022: 1016:John Smith's 1012: 1008: 1007: 1003: 996:John Smith's 992: 988: 985: 978:John Smith's 967:John Smith's 964: 958: 951:User:Endroit 948: 944: 940: 933:John Smith's 929: 926: 919:John Smith's 909:John Smith's 905: 898:John Smith's 887: 874: 871: 866:User:Endroit 861: 859: 839:both parties 838: 832: 824: 819: 803: 741: 736: 734: 661: 622: 558: 552: 546: 540: 534: 528: 522: 504: 498: 492: 486: 480: 474: 468: 450: 444: 438: 432: 426: 420: 413:John Smith's 402: 396: 390: 384: 378: 372: 346: 335: 323: 315: 309: 303: 297: 285: 283: 277: 275: 1546:Enforcement 1096:__________ 882:wikistalked 538:protections 484:protections 286:Case Closed 278:Case Opened 213:Next edit → 42:Next edit → 1524:block user 1518:filter log 1461:block user 1455:filter log 1426:Giovanni33 1391:block user 1385:filter log 1326:block user 1320:filter log 1291:Giovanni33 1285:Giovanni33 1259:Principles 1222:Accept. -- 1182:Giovanni33 1119:Giovanni33 613:Straw poll 550:page moves 496:page moves 448:block user 442:filter log 400:block user 394:filter log 365:Giovanni33 144:final warn 1636:this diff 1619:this edit 1611:this edit 1530:block log 1467:block log 1397:block log 1332:block log 1264:Consensus 686:requested 682:this post 663:tu quoque 629:block log 544:deletions 490:deletions 454:block log 406:block log 338:/Workshop 331:/Evidence 327:talk page 223:Line 176: 220:Line 176: 1706:Category 1500:contribs 1437:contribs 1415:Remedies 1367:contribs 1302:contribs 1233:James F. 1231:Accept. 1224:jpgordon 1213:Accept. 1203:FloNight 825:a priori 806:question 526:contribs 472:contribs 424:contribs 376:contribs 185:contribs 122:contribs 66:Wikitext 1627:Quadell 1035:abuse. 1671:. See 1621:. The 1236:(talk) 1215:Kirill 877:WP:ANI 716:Durova 702:Durova 671:Durova 649:Durova 556:rights 532:blocks 515:Durova 502:rights 478:blocks 192:93,195 175:Rlevse 129:93,195 112:Rlevse 77:Inline 59:Visual 1684:levse 1647:levse 1592:levse 1171:good. 778:offer 592:Other 194:edits 131:edits 16:< 1691:Talk 1673:here 1654:Talk 1599:Talk 1512:logs 1494:talk 1449:logs 1431:talk 1379:logs 1361:talk 1314:logs 1296:talk 1087:here 1083:here 1081:and 1079:here 1075:here 1047:both 955:here 847:El_C 810:El_C 791:El_C 782:El_C 769:El_C 760:El_C 745:El_C 631:and 520:talk 466:talk 461:El_C 436:logs 418:talk 388:logs 370:talk 181:talk 167:undo 162:edit 118:talk 104:edit 1613:to 1487:2) 1424:1) 1404:). 1354:2) 1339:). 1289:1) 1206:♥♥♥ 1030:yet 1026:you 637:CSN 562:RfA 508:RfA 344:. 1708:: 1694:• 1688:• 1677:— 1675:. 1657:• 1651:• 1640:— 1602:• 1596:• 1585:— 1560:. 1077:, 957:, 684:I 355:. 313:, 307:, 301:, 207:72 205:: 183:| 142:: 120:| 1682:R 1645:R 1638:. 1590:R 1583:. 1532:) 1527:· 1521:· 1515:· 1509:· 1503:· 1497:· 1492:( 1469:) 1464:· 1458:· 1452:· 1446:· 1440:· 1434:· 1429:( 1399:) 1394:· 1388:· 1382:· 1376:· 1370:· 1364:· 1359:( 1334:) 1329:· 1323:· 1317:· 1311:· 1305:· 1299:· 1294:( 1032:. 820:I 564:) 559:· 553:· 547:· 541:· 535:· 529:· 523:· 518:( 510:) 505:· 499:· 493:· 487:· 481:· 475:· 469:· 464:( 456:) 451:· 445:· 439:· 433:· 427:· 421:· 416:( 408:) 403:· 397:· 391:· 385:· 379:· 373:· 368:( 316:4 310:3 304:2 298:1 254:] 247:] 187:) 179:( 124:) 116:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's: Difference between revisions - Knowledge

Index