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

1141:; 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. 1181:

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.

1161:

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.

897:'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: 828:

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

999:

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.

981:

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.

1130:

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.

1134:

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.

1149:

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.

641: 166: 1180:

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

1152:

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

1133:

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

980:

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 -

935:

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

911:

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

827:

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

716:

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

1148:

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

1009:

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

998:

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

889:

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

842:. 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 1169:

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

1164:

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.

1129:

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

1104:

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

994:

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

664:

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

1539:

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

1476:

1205:

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

1160:

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

884:

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

1184:

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

1111:

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

950:

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

1273:

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

1144:

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

1039:

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

1185:

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.

1156:

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

873:

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

758:

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

649:

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

702:

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.

671:

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

946:

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

966:

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.

1153:

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:

1137:

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

1560:

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: 217: 149: 1018:

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?

951:

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.

1175:

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

1157:

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: 1074:

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.

329:

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

644:

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: 1256: 346: 744:

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.

1199: 936:

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.

1222: 1243: 922:

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.

901:

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.

1231: 1213: 25: 1736: 1060:

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.

342: 335: 1585: 912:

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.

740:

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

995:

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.

580: 1580:

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.

874:

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.

985: 926: 331: 1094:

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: 1721: 640:

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

1634: 747:

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.

566: 1701: 1664: 1116: 1098: 1044: 1023: 1003: 974: 940: 916: 905: 725: 711: 680: 259:#] blocked 72 hours for 2 reverts in a week and edit warring on ]. See . — ] • ] • 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 252:#] blocked 72 hours for 2 reverts in a week and edit warring on ]. See . — ] • ] • 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 607: 512: 1189: 854: 798: 789: 776: 767: 1139: 1072:

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.

602: 1710: 1609: 1170:

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.

685:

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

658: 1714: 836:, 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... 1108:

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.

1033:

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

885:

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

319: 1407: 1342: 817: 752: 1165:

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:

869:

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

637: 585: 357: 313: 307: 893:

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

1677: 270:#] blocked for 24 hours for 2 reverts in quick succession and edit warring on ]. See . ] ] 00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 833: 947:

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.

700: 698: 696: 694: 690: 686: 1510: 1377: 434: 301: 1154: 772:

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.

1630:

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

1447: 1312: 590: 386: 345:. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at 1064:

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.

617: 1575: 759:

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

1673: 794:

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

782: 191: 1083: 865:

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

860: 1504: 1371: 1091: 867:

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

428: 612: 1146: 810: 17: 823:

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

1087: 1090:. Forgot about that, didn't you? Also I do have an interest in things like the Holocaust (I did make an improvement 1010:

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

629: 1640: 1441: 1306: 380: 1623: 1615: 1121: 954:

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

1627: 970:

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

838: 184: 1534: 1401: 1079: 832:

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

458: 1194: 633: 1522: 1389: 742:

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

446: 530: 121: 1471: 1336: 410: 1528: 1395: 623: 452: 1459: 1324: 581:

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

398: 959: 542: 476: 341:

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

173: 1487: 1516: 1383: 735: 560: 548: 440: 1465: 1330: 574: 536: 488: 404: 110: 760: 1498: 1365: 964:

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

554: 506: 494: 422: 846:

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

1453: 1318: 1249: 482: 392: 1555: 847: 1424: 1240: 500: 76: 1435: 1300: 809:

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

374: 1112:

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

1014:

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

356:

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

8: 1284: 1219: 1354: 1493: 1360: 1210: 1113: 1095: 1041: 1020: 1000: 982: 971: 937: 923: 913: 902: 417: 334:, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at 180: 1584:

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

1694: 1657: 1619: 1602: 1237: 524: 117: 26: 1706: 1669: 1430: 1295: 1186: 1123: 369: 693:

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

1550: 1289: 1068:

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

763:, or I'll be taking it to arbitration where Giovanni will be banned for sure.' 470: 781:

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

1730: 1718: 1263: 1228: 1207: 894: 881: 646: 1709:

blocked for 24 hours for 2 reverts in quick succession and edit warring on

57: 1631: 955: 870: 363: 1683: 1646: 1591: 1419: 719: 705: 674: 652: 519: 1586:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Giovanni33

586:

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

1268: 1639:

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

890:

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

886: 851: 814: 795: 786: 773: 764: 749: 667: 465: 591:

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

1672:

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

358:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification

1622:. On January 8, he reverted to reinstate these changes with 877:

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

608:

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

1105:

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

603:

Knowledge:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story

1711:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop

1200:

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

1078:

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

64: 1540:

duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

1477:

duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

1406:has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring ( 1341:has frequently engaged in sustained edit-warring ( 785:"? Well, sorry, but I'm not prepared to do that. 1728: 352:Once the case is closed, editors may add to the 1260:(vote counts and comments are there as well) 630:WP:ANI#User:Giovanni33:_patience_exhausted.3F 717:would probably have brought it here sooner. 1562: 353: 207: 139: 1570:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1545:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1482:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1414:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1349:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1279:Passed 5-0 at 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 338:. Evidence is more useful than comments. 848:temporarily dead Japanese Prime Ministers 813:about seeking an informal solution. Why? 880:As to the case, from the discussions on 958:said in regards to Giovanni's proposal 14: 1729: 1674:State terrorism and the United States 1274:resources and destructive to morale. 672:reputation, certainly not this one. 90: 56: 665:block on Giovanni33 I replied that 216: 203: 172: 155: 148: 135: 109: 100:Revision as of 20:00, 13 April 2008 97: 23: 1029:Limiting a revert restriction for 279: 45: 18:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration 1748: 1206:all involved parties, of course. 285:on 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC) 277:Revision as of 00:18, 17 May 2008 158:Revision as of 00:18, 17 May 2008 647:community enforceable mediation 293:on 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1244:18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 1232:15:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 1223:02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 1214:11:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1190:17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 1145:would not be here today. See: 1117:09:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 1099:22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1045:21:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1024:20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1004:21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 986:06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 975:21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 941:18:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 927:11:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 917:09:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 906:09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 855:21:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 850:for me to attend to, instead. 818:09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 799:11:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 790:09:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 777:06:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 768:04:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 753:03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 726:21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 718: 712:19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 704: 681:04:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 673: 659:03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 651: 13: 1: 275: 266: 1665:03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 28:Browse history interactively 7: 1737:Knowledge Arbitration cases 1635:22:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 1610:02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 10: 1753: 1702:20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 1050:Just a restriction on the 943:_________________________ 932:_________________________ 761:highly advantageous remedy 299:Watchlist all case pages: 205: 137: 861:Statement by John Smith's 264: 227: 224: 154: 96: 1722:00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1614:On Jan 2, Giovanni made 632:I reviewed Giovanni33's 208:→‎Log of blocks and bans 192:Extended confirmed users 140:→‎Log of blocks and bans 1563:#Log of blocks and bans 1488:John Smith's restricted 1255:All numbering based on 1006:______________________ 991:______________________ 354:#Log of blocks and bans 212:note block for Giovanni 95: 1576:Log of blocks and bans 1054:of you from reverting 638:confirmed sockpuppetry 1425:Giovanni33 restricted 1195:Preliminary decisions 1556:Enforcement by block 1058:edits on any article 575:Requests for comment 624:Statement by Durova 1257:/Proposed decision 347:/Proposed decision 170: 107: 1628:talk page history 736:Statement by El C 326: 274: 156: 98: 78: 1744: 1700: 1697: 1691: 1663: 1660: 1654: 1620:New antisemitism 1608: 1605: 1599: 1538: 1511:deleted contribs 1475: 1448:deleted contribs 1405: 1378:deleted contribs 1340: 1313:deleted contribs 1285:Findings of fact 839:view it yourself 724: 722: 710: 708: 679: 677: 657: 655: 570: 516: 462: 435:deleted contribs 414: 387:deleted contribs 364:Involved parties 325: 324: 297: 214: 213: 211: 198: 188: 169: 164: 146: 145: 143: 130: 125: 106: 79: 70: 69: 67: 62: 60: 52: 49: 31: 29: 1752: 1751: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1727: 1726: 1707:User:Giovanni33 1695: 1684: 1681: 1670:User:Giovanni33 1658: 1647: 1644: 1603: 1592: 1589: 1578: 1558: 1553: 1496: 1490: 1433: 1427: 1422: 1363: 1357: 1298: 1292: 1287: 1271: 1266: 1252: 1202: 1197: 1127: 863: 834:my astonishment 738: 720: 706: 675: 653: 628:In response to 626: 577: 522: 468: 420: 372: 366: 327: 300: 298: 294: 286: 271: 260: 253: 244: 237: 220: 215: 206: 204: 202: 201: 200: 196: 194: 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: 1750: 1740: 1739: 1725: 1724: 1704: 1667: 1637: 1612: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1557: 1554: 1552: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1489: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1426: 1423: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1356: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1291: 1288: 1286: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1270: 1267: 1265: 1262: 1251: 1250:Final decision 1248: 1247: 1246: 1234: 1225: 1216: 1201: 1198: 1196: 1193: 1178: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1126: 1120: 989: 988: 930: 929: 909: 908: 862: 859: 858: 857: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 792: 737: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 625: 622: 621: 620: 615: 610: 605: 599: 598: 594: 593: 588: 583: 576: 573: 572: 571: 517: 463: 415: 365: 362: 296: 289: 281: 278: 273: 272: 269: 267: 265: 262: 261: 258: 256: 254: 251: 249: 246: 245: 242: 240: 238: 235: 233: 230: 229: 226: 222: 221: 195: 190: 189: 174: 153: 127: 126: 111: 80: 74: 72: 54: 46: 37: 33: 32: 24: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1749: 1738: 1735: 1734: 1732: 1723: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1703: 1698: 1692: 1690: 1688: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1668: 1666: 1661: 1655: 1653: 1651: 1642: 1638: 1636: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1611: 1606: 1600: 1598: 1596: 1587: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1571: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1564: 1546: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1536: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1515: 1512: 1509: 1506: 1503: 1500: 1495: 1483: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1473: 1470: 1467: 1464: 1461: 1458: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1446: 1443: 1440: 1437: 1432: 1415: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1408: 1403: 1400: 1397: 1394: 1391: 1388: 1385: 1382: 1379: 1376: 1373: 1370: 1367: 1362: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1343: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1311: 1308: 1305: 1302: 1297: 1280: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1261: 1259: 1258: 1245: 1242: 1239: 1235: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1224: 1221: 1217: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1204: 1203: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1182: 1174: 1173: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1155: 1150: 1147: 1142: 1140: 1135: 1131: 1125: 1122:Statement by 1119: 1118: 1115: 1109: 1106: 1102: 1100: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1076: 1073: 1069: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1046: 1043: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1025: 1022: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1005: 1002: 996: 992: 987: 984: 979: 978: 977: 976: 973: 968: 965: 961: 957: 952: 948: 944: 942: 939: 933: 928: 925: 921: 920: 919: 918: 915: 907: 904: 900: 899: 898: 896: 895:User:DHeyward 891: 888: 883: 878: 875: 872: 868: 856: 853: 849: 845: 841: 840: 835: 831: 826: 822: 821: 820: 819: 816: 812: 800: 797: 793: 791: 788: 784: 780: 779: 778: 775: 771: 770: 769: 766: 762: 757: 756: 755: 754: 751: 748: 743: 727: 723: 715: 714: 713: 709: 701: 699: 697: 695: 692: 688: 684: 683: 682: 678: 670: 669: 663: 662: 661: 660: 656: 650:arbitration. 648: 643: 639: 635: 631: 619: 616: 614: 613:Third opinion 611: 609: 606: 604: 601: 600: 596: 595: 592: 589: 587: 584: 582: 579: 578: 568: 565: 562: 559: 556: 553: 550: 547: 544: 541: 538: 535: 532: 529: 526: 521: 518: 514: 511: 508: 505: 502: 499: 496: 493: 490: 487: 484: 481: 478: 475: 472: 467: 464: 460: 457: 454: 451: 448: 445: 442: 439: 436: 433: 430: 427: 424: 419: 416: 412: 409: 406: 403: 400: 397: 394: 391: 388: 385: 382: 379: 376: 371: 368: 367: 361: 359: 355: 350: 348: 344: 339: 337: 333: 323: 322: 317: 316: 311: 310: 305: 304: 295: 292: 287: 284: 276: 268: 263: 257: 255: 250: 248: 247: 241: 239: 234: 232: 231: 223: 219: 209: 193: 186: 182: 177: 168: 163: 159: 151: 141: 123: 119: 114: 105: 101: 83: 68: 61: 51:Content added 43: 40: 30: 19: 1686: 1685: 1649: 1648: 1594: 1593: 1579: 1569: 1559: 1544: 1531: 1525: 1519: 1513: 1507: 1501: 1494:John Smith's 1491: 1481: 1468: 1462: 1456: 1450: 1444: 1438: 1428: 1413: 1398: 1392: 1386: 1380: 1374: 1368: 1361:John Smith's 1358: 1355:John Smith's 1348: 1333: 1327: 1321: 1315: 1309: 1303: 1293: 1278: 1272: 1254: 1253: 1183: 1179: 1163: 1159: 1151: 1143: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1114:John Smith's 1110: 1107: 1103: 1096:John Smith's 1077: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1062: 1057: 1056:each other's 1053: 1049: 1048: 1042:John Smith's 1036: 1032: 1028: 1027: 1021:John Smith's 1017: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1001:John Smith's 997: 993: 990: 983:John Smith's 972:John Smith's 969: 963: 956:User:Endroit 953: 949: 945: 938:John Smith's 934: 931: 924:John Smith's 914:John Smith's 910: 903:John Smith's 892: 879: 876: 871:User:Endroit 866: 864: 844:both parties 843: 837: 829: 824: 808: 746: 741: 739: 666: 627: 563: 557: 551: 545: 539: 533: 527: 509: 503: 497: 491: 485: 479: 473: 455: 449: 443: 437: 431: 425: 418:John Smith's 407: 401: 395: 389: 383: 377: 351: 340: 328: 320: 314: 308: 302: 290: 288: 282: 280: 1551:Enforcement 1101:__________ 887:wikistalked 543:protections 489:protections 291:Case Closed 283:Case Opened 218:Next edit → 42:Next edit → 1529:block user 1523:filter log 1466:block user 1460:filter log 1431:Giovanni33 1396:block user 1390:filter log 1331:block user 1325:filter log 1296:Giovanni33 1290:Giovanni33 1264:Principles 1227:Accept. -- 1187:Giovanni33 1124:Giovanni33 618:Straw poll 555:page moves 501:page moves 453:block user 447:filter log 405:block user 399:filter log 370:Giovanni33 1641:this diff 1624:this edit 1616:this edit 1535:block log 1472:block log 1402:block log 1337:block log 1269:Consensus 691:requested 687:this post 668:tu quoque 634:block log 549:deletions 495:deletions 459:block log 411:block log 343:/Workshop 336:/Evidence 332:talk page 228:Line 177: 225:Line 177: 1731:Category 1719:Sam Korn 1505:contribs 1442:contribs 1420:Remedies 1372:contribs 1307:contribs 1238:James F. 1236:Accept. 1229:jpgordon 1218:Accept. 1208:FloNight 830:a priori 811:question 531:contribs 477:contribs 429:contribs 381:contribs 185:contribs 175:Sam Korn 122:contribs 66:Wikitext 1632:Quadell 1040:abuse. 1713:. See 1676:. See 1626:. The 1241:(talk) 1220:Kirill 882:WP:ANI 721:Durova 707:Durova 676:Durova 654:Durova 561:rights 537:blocks 520:Durova 507:rights 483:blocks 197:22,849 129:93,195 112:Rlevse 77:Inline 59:Visual 1689:levse 1652:levse 1597:levse 1176:good. 783:offer 597:Other 199:edits 131:edits 16:< 1715:here 1696:Talk 1678:here 1659:Talk 1604:Talk 1517:logs 1499:talk 1454:logs 1436:talk 1384:logs 1366:talk 1319:logs 1301:talk 1092:here 1088:here 1086:and 1084:here 1080:here 1052:both 960:here 852:El_C 815:El_C 796:El_C 787:El_C 774:El_C 765:El_C 750:El_C 636:and 525:talk 471:talk 466:El_C 441:logs 423:talk 393:logs 375:talk 181:talk 167:undo 162:edit 118:talk 104:edit 1717:. 1618:to 1492:2) 1429:1) 1409:). 1359:2) 1344:). 1294:1) 1211:♥♥♥ 1035:yet 1031:you 642:CSN 567:RfA 513:RfA 349:. 1733:: 1699:• 1693:• 1682:— 1680:. 1662:• 1656:• 1645:— 1607:• 1601:• 1590:— 1565:. 1082:, 962:, 689:I 360:. 318:, 312:, 306:, 210:: 183:| 144:72 142:: 120:| 1687:R 1650:R 1643:. 1595:R 1588:. 1537:) 1532:· 1526:· 1520:· 1514:· 1508:· 1502:· 1497:( 1474:) 1469:· 1463:· 1457:· 1451:· 1445:· 1439:· 1434:( 1404:) 1399:· 1393:· 1387:· 1381:· 1375:· 1369:· 1364:( 1339:) 1334:· 1328:· 1322:· 1316:· 1310:· 1304:· 1299:( 1037:. 825:I 569:) 564:· 558:· 552:· 546:· 540:· 534:· 528:· 523:( 515:) 510:· 504:· 498:· 492:· 486:· 480:· 474:· 469:( 461:) 456:· 450:· 444:· 438:· 432:· 426:· 421:( 413:) 408:· 402:· 396:· 390:· 384:· 378:· 373:( 321:4 315:3 309:2 303:1 243:] 236:] 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