Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with ~. When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks. This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

Be aware that Arbitrators and Clerks may rework this page to try to make it more coherent, with or without warning. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. Instead, cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

John Smith's and revisionist history
Over two years ago, another administrator requested my assistance in reviewing the possible pov-pushing of revisionist history (ironially, his userpage claims the opposite), namely Chang's then-new book, into several PRC-related entries from a then-new user: John Smith's.

The advantage that Chang's work initially enjoyed primarily came from the mainstream media (the book is extremely hostile of Mao, who was against massive private ownership of the means of communication), which is owned by centralized private wealth. Even without peer review, the book was hailed as seminal, despite the fact that glances from the scholarship, which under capitalism enjoys limited but far greater independence than the (directly-owned-by-the-billionaires) mainstream media, revealed dishonest methodology, anecdote-based-evidence, etc.

I realize that the Committee does not deal with content, but to dramatically revise the modern history of a billion people, when a non-scholarly, non-peer reviewed book is still fresh from the printers, is big. Really big. And when an editor propagates such a minority view, for years, across multiple entries, without qualifications, then, that, I think, is worthy of the Committee's attention. Our credibility, as a tertiary source, largely rests on it fairly reflecting rather than changing views. That demands a degree of caution that is more closely related to scholarship than media.

Thus, when, on July 2005, John Smith's asserted to myself, as the second uninvolved admin looking into the matter, that "No one has actually come forward yet from the academic community and said 'she's wrong because xyz' - nor have they said 'OMG, she's right!'", he was, I agreed he was essentially correct in that assessment. This, because the scholarship is more cautious (again, than the media), and thus, slower to examine (even world-changing, history revising) whichever given material (i.e. months and years rather than days and weeks).

Today, of course, the book has been peer reviewed and largely rejected as revisionist fantasy. One of the more potent analyses comes from Coordinator of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania, Professor Kaz Ross (profile) who concludes in Mao: the too familiar story (abstract), that while "The western media have been overwhelmingly supportive [of the book]... [it is] is a misleading and dangerous text."

Despite such damming conclusions from the actual experts (where history of modern China is actually studied, professionally), the campaign to inject and interject Changism into virtually every modern China-related article continues unabated. Topics which, prior, were relatively uncontroversial become controversial, and ones which are inherently controversial, become heated. Now, if this was a 9/11 conspiratorial view, it long would have been subjected to much different treatment (least of all by those asking for Giovanni's banishment), but due to the lack of the Anglo-American focus, unfamiliarity with the material, and virulent anti-Mao partisanship, unwittingly or otherwise, Wikipedia has now come to be the forefront Chang propagandist out there (even as Chang's main supporter, the mainstream media, has began to quiet down on the matter).

For years, then, John Smith's has been, with all due subtlety, making a mockery out of our neutral point of view policy and, simply put, he should not be permitted to continue, indefinitely, to act as Chang's propagandist. That he edit war toward that end, which I realize for the Committee's purposes is key, is to me, one of the few admins to monitor Chinese articles (there are not that many of us) secondary. What is pivotal is that our credibility is at stake. To be more blunt: we are probably coming across to the govt. of the PRC (which although it has long abandoned Mao's teaching, nonetheless promote hero worship of him): 'hey, you fucked with us, now we're going to fuck with you by disproportionately employing a nonscholarly, anecdotal, propaganda book. What are you gonna do, nuke us? There's a line over there.'

If the book had merit, I'd say, let them think whatever they wish, but it is a nonscholarly, anecdotal, propaganda book, written by a nonhistorian masquerading as a history book (the unsympathetic West's own scholarship affirms it to be so, and now, even the mainstream media is beginning to shy away from their hitherto triumphalism). Time for Wikipedia to follow suit, lest we shall fall into further disrepute. And it begins with editors such as John Smith's who have been pov pushing this materials for all these years, with no indication of change or moderation.

Ask a random historian
Or maybe not so random. Preferably, someone teaching the history of modern China, or at least modern Asia, seeing how this is a fairly recent field in the history departments of many universities in the West (it is in the university where I received my history postgraduate, which is consistently ranked at the top ten universities in the continent; Japanese history, however, has existed for decades). What I'm getting at serves more than a rhetorical device. Since, due to various circumstances, Committee members often enough find themselves, physically, on university grounds, it should not be that difficult to take a stroll to the social sciences (unless you're already there; or, if history is taught in the arts, stop reading right now and go do something else), find one of the individuals who teaches the aforementioned, and ask for the one-minute answer to the following: 'to what extent, if any, should professional encyclopedia entries related to the national history of modern China revolve around a recent book by Chang? (would you be bothered to learn that this included a significant number of these, and that the Chang-related focus in each, otherwise unrelated-to-her entry, was considerable?)' 'What reputation does her book enjoys in the pertinent historiography?' El_C 17:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: "Evidence" by Folic Acid
I'm uncertain as to why Folic Acid suddenly decided to refractor his talk page comments here. I certainly have no intention of duplicating anything I said thus far. For my responses, see the talk page where these were originally submitted. El_C 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Claims by John Smith's
It is clear that there has been pro-Chang pov-pushing on John Smith's part for years, beginning when the book was fresh from the printers. This does undermine Wikipedia's reputation. His edit warring, on this and other fronts, are, likewise, disruptive. His attempts to present my efforts to have Giovanni receive fair and equitable treatment (i.e. blocklog stereotyping unconnected to spacetime) as somehow partisan, is questionable. El_C 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * John Smith's followup that he took an interest early-on strikes me as inconsistent. I just-now ctrl.F'd his 200-latest contributions with the word "Chang" and got over ten results, so my claim this has been going on for years, seem substantiated by even the most cursory overview. And as for his claim that "I want [my] 'pound of flesh'" — sorry, I don't do pounds of flesh. El_C 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I must say, though, that "pound of flesh" is quite the analogy. Per JS' request, a cursory glance at edits from less than a month ago: (note the 3rd diff of a pro-Chang quotation from a "Professor" who teaches... Marketing, but that's for us to google). El_C 19:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I, again, urge JS' to exhibit greater moderation. Exclamations such as "our revert-happy user Giovanni" hinder collegial interaction. El_C 20:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The same day, after adding the aforementioned "Professor of Marketing and Competitive Studies," JS' reverted that addition. Clearly, a content dispute, he nonetheless, claimed "vandalism" in his edit summary,(20:14, 27 August) reverting the next day: (05:33, 28 August) Two weeks ago, he reverted back-in the dubious qualification "controversial in their eyes" (05:31, 12 September) —  JS' tries to present the book as controversial only "in the eyes" of scholars who question its methodology. El_C 20:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the 3rr block: although I did disagree with Deskana for effectively rewarding John Smith's by protecting the page on his favoured version, even though John Smith's was the one to violate the 3rr (which he nonetheless denied doing; my diffs at the time, however, proved different: ), I did not over-rule him for this reason, or for that matter, knowingly. Rather, as I explained shortly thereafter, this was a simple oversight on my part (I missed the 3rr notice having been closed; after this was pointed out to me, I explicitly left the matter to Deskana's discretion: ). There was nothing, otherwise, unusual with that 3rr block, and during that hour, I closed several other 3rr reports on AN3 (one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven), for a total of twelve 3rr reports closed. Which ain't at all too bad. El_C 06:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: "3rr block" by Heimstern Läufer
Once again, we see Giovanni being singled-out. I'm not going to intimate that there is some sort of campaign, but the carelessness in which a two-week block in handed out for what the blocker admits was not, technically, a 3rr violation, is astounding. Then we have the approval largely from Giovanni's most vehement opponents, who of course never suffer any such consequence. Heimstern Läufer and others, thus, succeed (after there has been no blocks for a year) in re-accumulating new blocks (on the basis of these year-old blocks), which are, therefore, used to justify future blocks, on a whim. All of this increasingly takes the appearance of lenient treatment for the conservative political side and ever-compounding harshness for whomever opposes them. What a seemingly amazing set up that is. I, of course, reduced the two-week block after having received assurances that no wheel warring were to follow. I note that several established editors & admins supported my position. El_C 07:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit more concretely, I have been a sysop for years now, overseeing some of the most difficult set of articles on the project, and am not particularly known for taking unilateral action. Also, out of ~1,000 admins, I am consistently at the top-50 in terms of block/ protections/ deletions, the vast majority without incident, and I am getting the sense that I am increasingly being painted under a less than fair brush here. And lest folks here forget that I, personally, aided some of Giovanni's most bitter opponents out of serious trouble. Recently, too.


 * Irrespectively of that, I don't feel that my action were as unilateral as Heimstern Läufer presents these (just as with the following block by Durova, which he fails to mention was also split about 50:50, and, I feel, largely follow a similar problematic impetus as the above), largely since the diffs he provides are early on in the thread, where Giovanni's opponents appear to support the block almost in succession. Later, however, FayssalF, encapsulated the view that several of us held, when he wrote that: "I agree w/ Pro and El C here. Continued long-standing pattern edit warring applies to the other side as well." (italics in the original) As an aside, I disagreed with Giovanni's attempts to add The Pet Goat thingy. Although not worth revert warring over, by either side. El_C 08:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Endroit's questioning my impartiality
I reject his claim that my ideology renders me incapable of being fair&balanced. The substance of my arguments should be the focus, however. El_C 08:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, no, El C does not stand for El Che but El Commandante (not that it matters). And also, incidentally, I bring to the attention of Endroit the fact that one of the Arbitration Committee own members has, in fact, awarded me with the Current Events Barnstar for my "work on Cuban and Middle Eastern current affairs" (italics is my emphasis). I try to be sensitive with sensitive issues. El_C 09:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the claim "[I] abused my powers" (I just caught that), that is a serious charge, and yet Endroit fails to demonstrate where and when this alleged abuse has taken place. I try to be cautious with administrative imperative, so it's rather shocking to hear this uttered so nonchalantly. El_C 10:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Endroit's theatrics (the image and caption; note that I already stated what the acronym stands for) are contemptuous of these proceedings (also: I already explained the 3rr block at some length, and the diff I show with FaysalF who supported reducing the block, depict a later stage of the discussion, showing that Heimstern Läufer surprise block was not, in fact, met with overwhelming consensus as the earlier diff he cites implies). I would even go so far as to say that it may be reminiscent of some of the stereotyping I spoke of above. It is disturbing. El_C 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Durova's indefinite block
Durova speaks about assumptions of good faith, but she, herself, assumes too much. I did not argue she was biased, I argued that bias played a factor in the ever-compounding blocks (I won't presume to tell at which stage beyond being a product). The record shows that I did not object to Dmcdvit's evenhanded blocks, but yes, I was among the fifty percent who contested her indefinite block. The majority of those seeking a ban, both on ANI and CSN seem to have been within the immediate circle of Giovanni's opponents (and civility by some of whom was slipping  in the latter venue, which, sadly, is to be expected from a poll-like venue). After imposing an indefinite block on only one of the parties, I felt she was less than suited to assume the role of, de facto, a sole CSN-arbitrator. The fact that she originally named this arbitration case Giovanni33 and that it was Dmcdecit who renamed it to Giovanni33-John Smith, may, as well, account for some preexisting assumptions on her part.

When I explained to her that John Smith's difficult-to-decode offer was problematic in that it provided himself with a clear revert advantage that he would be able to use for those disputed (pertaining-to-Chang) set of articles, she claimed that she would need to see evidence if there is to be a symmetrical formula between to two. In theory, such an evidentiary request may sound reasonable, but the question nonetheless arises: what body of evidence could one provide to demonstrate the need for symmetry between the two, and, is CSN suited, as a venue, to handle it. El_C 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Overinflation of the role played by myself
At this point, I feel that both Endriot and John Smith's are overinflating the role played by myself in this dispute. Note that the evidence page by Endroit up until yesterday looked like this: (!) Also note his cryptic comments on the talk page yesterday that: "[t]here will be even more damning evidence forthcoming, showing further lack of impartiality by El C, which should be even more chilling for everyone (including me)." What can I say to that, except that it, in itself, appears to fall very short of impartial. I'll somewhat refractor what I've written on the talk page :

The cold hard fact is that I have taken two admin tasks related to this case: 1. I blocked JS' for a legitimate/technical 3rr violation as part of eleven other 3rr/an3 cases during that hour. 2. I reduced Giovanni's block from two weeks to three days, a duration that was recommended by an uninvolved editor who investigated the matter and was supported by several other editors and admins (including FaysalF whom Durova cited on my talk page as a model admin). And that is it. As far as editing, I neither edited any of the articles involved in this dispute, nor any other ones cited on the evidence or talk page, ever. Now, I'm not, nor have I ever, denied I may have made some mistakes related to this dispute (in fact, I outright admitted some), but the focus on myself on the part of Endroit and JS' is, to use an understatement, grossly unbalanced. El_C 07:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

John Smiths extensive Edit Warring and POV pushing
First of all, I never tried to hide the fact that I also did edit war, and I do believe it takes "two to tango." So I readily accept guilt. But even as the blocking admin admitted, it was only a recent "relapse," after editing for almost a year without a single incident, proving that I'm quite capable of improvement and good work-- whereas with JohnSmith's its been rather consistent. The other important difference is content: I only edit warred with him to stop the serious undue weight/ pov pushing--his inserting the revisionist non-historian Jung Change theories into main history articles. This hurts WP. Chang's novel theories have their place in WP--but not in main history articles. When his tenacious edit warring is combined with adding content that violates an important WP tenant (undue weight), it compounds the gravity of the problem. That is when I stepped in to counter him. When I did this, and then reported his 3RR vio, that is when I got in blocked instead. See here for evidence of this mutual edit warring that I submitted, knowing it could get me in trouble but I put WP's interest ahead of mine: Again, to be clear, a block on both parties for this would be understandable, since I did edit war even if I didn't break 3RR as Smith did. That is no excuse. In retrospect, I would not have taken that course of action. Instead I'd have come report it to the ANI before edit warring because as it is, I've seen that every time I edit war (agreed its a bad thing), I do get reported, and sometimes blocked despite no 3RR.


 * The issue of equity:

As to there being a double standard, I want to be clear that I don't raise this believing it to be a defense of my own actions, but I point out that this has been mostly one-sided, when compared to how conservative political opponents are treated, who have worse block logs, and also edit war. I'm quick to get reported by those who are guilty of the same actions yet the focus is on one party, and the block is sought without concern for parity. I wondered about that, and thought, hmm, maybe its because they are reporting it? I tested that theory, above, and it proved false. I also notice that the use of my past block log as a basis to justify severe sanctions is greatly uneven and abused. As an example, consider this: The admin one-sidely blocks me for 2 weeks for edit warring with Tbeatty (using a very dated old block log records) and ignoring equity with Tbeatty--yet this is same admin then who undoes a legitimate block of a right-wing pov warrior "for equity" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:TDC 03:29, 4 September 2007 Heimstern (Talk | contribs) unblocked TDC (Talk | contribs) ‎ (For equity)" And, Tbeatty (same user as DHeywardy--nice way to clean ones block log), also has a long block log for edit warring, yet nothing happens to him when he reports his own edit warring with me (not a 3RR vio). Yet, I get a 2 week block? The inequality results in that my block log gets built up, while others who edit war just the same go without it. Again, this is not an excuse for my own conduct, but it is a problem, and I do I think that equality, parity is very important. I also think looking at the content of what is best for WP is important. Still, I accept responsibility for my own role and do not use this an an excuse for edit warring. That is why I proposed a topical ban and/or a 1RR probation binding on both parties (and hope that in the future both parties who are guilty of edit waring get treated with symmetry. Unfortunately, while I can see where I was wrong, John Smith is rather obstinate when it comes to being introspective regarding his own misbehaviors, and that is why we are here. He refused to agree to any parity of his own edit warring.

For examples of how Chang's theories are placed into main history articles violating Undue Weight, I show this example in Korean War:. After this was trimmed down and stable for some time, John Smith's characteristic POV pushing is to even remove the qualification that its "controversial.":

Edit war ensues (I'm only showing one, but theres more): 

Other editors agree to remove, and he edit wars with them all (I'm only showing some):

 

John Smith even calls it "censorship" to remove in his edit summary: 

John Smith is opposed by yet another editor: , who responds correctly: (rv; removal of a novel and unexplored theory from a single recently published controversial book is not censorship, it's application of WP:UNDUE)Eleland (Talk | contribs)

Losing that edit war, his very next edits are to start another edit war, in a clear WP:Point Violation, by taking the referenced content by historian Bruce Cumings out using the same language and arguments his opponents used against his Changism, although there is no comparision between the discredited Chang book and Prof. Cumings:

Yet, Smiths removes him: "(removed cummings - undue weight)" parotting the legitimate reasons his pushing of Chang was removed, making the point, "if one is gone, this other one goes." 

First he removes the citation and places a “Fact” tag on Cummings. Then only a minute later he removes the previously sourced text, under the pretext that its unsourced!: When he is opposed he edit wars, of course:

To be clear, Cumings is legitimate scholar, a recognized expert. Here is just some evidence of his stature in the field:  

The edit war then spills over with John Smith going to the main article about the historian Bruce Cumings, and starts to edit war there, too--which I reported with the 3RR violation. He also starts up an old edit war at Great Leap Forward about a link.

This pro-Changism pov pushing also extends to removing valid criticism from China Studies experts, as can be seen in this discussion: Despite this being a qualifed academic, its not good enough for Smith. Yet, when it comes to pro-Chang commentary, anyone will do--even a prof. of Marketing.

Regarding the nature of the Chang book, ElC, is correct. See this mainstream review, which echo's that characterization:

However, his extensive edit warring, extends to silly issues such as dating systems (BCE vs BC), which I do not enter, as I don’t about most disputes I encounter, or see. I may revert once or twice at most, preferring to discuss at talk, or simply walk away. I walk away and come back later, and things are cooled down. I’ve done this many times, although it may not be noticed. But, this is an improvement over my early days on this issue when I lacked such wisdom.

When I claim that John Smith's edit warring is extensive, I do not exaggerate: I bring to your attention some edit warring '37 reversions'' over content that he made in a single day! I think this has to be a record. These are content disputes that he instigated across several related articles. Take a look at his contributions on the recent date of Aug. 6th to see this:

Here are some of the evidence of this vast edit warring, and gaming the system over several articles (and note: with other editors--not me, as Smiths often says he only edit wars with me, because I'm unreasonable, etc.). All untrue. See:

Indus Valley Civilization:

  

Take a glipse into Jin Dynasty:

And, Ming Dynasty:

 Note that he reverts with such uncivil edit summaries such as this: (rv; vandalism; also Ghost please use edit summaries and gain consensus first)

 

And, Southern and Northern Dynasties 4 revert just over 24 hours:

   

7 reverts with several users on History of the Americas (wont list them all here but take a look):

Nanking Massacre--Same edit warring, multiple reverts in the course of a day:

   

So as not to break 3RR he waits a day and reverts 3 more times:

   This goes on until the article gets protected by admin Deskana.

John Smiths Accusing many other editors of Wikistalking him but it lacks merit
 "(reverting wikistalking - PHG let me resolve this with the other user)"

Here he also accuses an admin, KillerChihuahua, of wikistalking him:  "(rv; please stop wiki-stalking - I was making the terms consistent with the earliest non-stub version)"

He accused this other editor wiki-stalking to an editor who awarded him a barnstar a while back, and even this sympathetic editor looked as his accusations, concludeding: ''"It seems like you are already discussing this elsewhere. I don't see any evidence of stalking, just that you two don't seem to get along wherever you meet. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)" ''

More accusations of others wikistalking him:   "(→Wikistalking an POV pushing)"

Smith complains on an admin board, asking, “Can someone please get the wikistalkers off my back?” 

Being looked into it, it was found not to have merit. The response to John Smith’s crying “Wikistalking,” with what was really going on. I quote:

"Wikistalking? ROFLMAO. Pushing POV across several articles indicates a need to make certain it doesn't happen everywhere. It's hysterical when an editor, who's been shown to push a certain POV, whines about wikistalking, just to throw off the scent. Well, now I'm watching you too John Smith. I guess I'll be accused soon. I don't actually care, because it's so funny. You've made my day. Accusing KC, a well-known administrator on this project, of wikistalking is like accusing me of believing in the myth of Jesus. Never going to happen. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)"

John Smiths Own Wikistaling
There is irony, that we have him doing what he accuses so many others of: Wikistalking This is just with wikistalking me--I don't know if he does with others because I don't follow him around to know if he does or not. But, he shows up to these articles as soon as I edit, where he has never edited before, and had shown no previous interest in the subject-- only to revert me:

   

John Smith, even makes this following comment when I pointed out he was wikistalking me: He tacitly admits it on the talk page to a Point Violation: ''“As I pointed out, if you believe I am wikistalking then your past edits mean you did the same thing to me. John Smith's 13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)”''

John Smiths as a probable Puppeteer
Suspected sock puppet: Evidence: One of User:John Smith's extensive edit warring on WP is for the use the BC/AD dating format (as opposed to BCE/CE) across multiple pages here on WP, as I’ve partly shown above, but there’s more: User User:Foula then arrived who created the now-deleted Template:History of China - BC, and an exact duplicate of Template:History of China except that all the BCE/CE was replaced with BC/AD—what John Smith argued for about this template. The new account then inserted the template into several articles. John Smith then proceeded to mass insert the template into a number of other articles as minor edits. John Smith's and Foula were the only two accounts that tried to insert the duplicate template into articles.
 * Talk:Jesus
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China
 * Talk:Japan

Note that Foula had only made edits related to this BC/AD vs. BCE/CE date format issue. It was apparent that this was a sock to other editors. See:. Given an awareness of John Smiths editing, if it is him, he has used it in an abusive fashion given that they were double voting: And, a poll on the MoS for China-related articles.
 * First there was the Template for Deletion vote on Template:History of China - BC.

  meatpuppetry is also very likely.

John Smith's has this mysterious anon IP addresses who show up, and come back when John Smiths needs extra reverts— always from the same location. This has been termed his "Hungarian friend" because it shows up to help John Smith's out after he made three reverts. Having IPs from the same range show up only to make the same reverts (and do nothing else) that John Smith's did, after he made three reverts himself, is very clear to me. I think we can infer that given these anon IPs only make edits to revert to John Smith version (including making very particular, idiosyncratic edits that are favored only by John Smiths—it because so obvious that any other speculation is harder to believe. See: Hungarian friend There are a lot of IP editors from Hungary who agree with John Smith's. Here another one of John Smith's Other Hungarian friend with the same modus operandi. I will also note that I believe Xmas1972 to be a meatpuppet, as he showed up knowing, agressively taking John Smith's side, and making attacks against me, with  no prior history of interaction with  me. I also noticed he edits on Hungary topics. I've been around long enough to recognize various editing behaviors, and his stand as very suspect.

With user Foula, the suspicious thing is that the account was new and the only thing the user edited mirrors the issues John Smith's has edit warred over-- and that Foula and John Smith's were the only ones to try to mass insert that duplicate template into articles. This would probably be an allowable use of a sock but Foula has also voted with John Smith's.

This was brought up for user check here, and serves as an example of how use checks are using quite differently for different people. Apparently, vote fraud where sock votes did not affect poll outcomes do not qualify for check user requests. I think it should be checked, and to WP:NOP to see if they're proxies. There was no user check done on this, despite the request, and despite considerable evidence.

'' I ask that John Smith realize there is a problem with himself. If he is able to, I’m sure he will agree that the offers of parity was in fact very generous. I don't think any of us should feel entitled to revert more than once a day anyway--that is edit waring. I’m open to accepting things for the good of WP, but he just wants to keep doing what he has been doing and that has got to change.
 * All in all this is a serious case of disruption to the project on many fronts. His editing style has exasperated many editors. An example: ''"Wow one can't even give his opinion in a case without having the accused user trolling his talk page, shooo! go bother Hong) Caribbean H.Q. (Talk | contribs)"

Evidence presented by Endroit
This Arbcom case was triggered by an indef block on Giovanni33, based on this false AN3 report by Giovanni33 against John Smith's. See this ANI case (and also this CSN case). This indef block was endorsed by the following admins, at one point or another: Dmcdevit, Moreschi, Durova, Tom harrison, Until(1 == 2), Ryulong, MastCell, Butseriouslyfolks, Aude, Anonymous Dissident. However, others have asked for a lesser penalty, and there were some significant disagreements.

Giovanni33 has used some of his extensive evasion maneuvers (shown right below) to ask Arbcom to reduce his block. One of these maneuvers is "blaming someone else", in this case John Smith's, and ask for "parity".

Gaming by Giovanni33, Part 1 - Block evasion
Various methods of 3RR evasion include:
 * 1) Waiting just over 24 hours for the 4th revert
 * 2) Blaming someone else for it
 * 3) ACTUALLY BREAK 3RR, and if reported at AN3, self-revert to ask for mercy
 * 4) Recruiting others for the revert war

(Note that John Smith's is involved in only ONE of the 7 incidents below.)


 * 1. State terrorism by the United States (May 2007)
 * AN3 reported by: Yaf; Result: No block by Jossi
 * Opponents: Yaf; (Sample edit: "... freedom fighters that some Governments consider terrorists.")
 * Proponents: Giovanni33; (Sample edit: "... terrorists and also for other similar activities which are interpreted as terrorism according to international law and even US definitions.")
 * 3RR vio: 22:38, 15 May 2007, 23:20, 15 May 2007, 04:56, 16 May 2007, 17:46, 16 May 2007, 22:30, 16 May 2007, 23:38, 16 May 2007
 * Evasion: self-reverted (02:26, 17 May 2007) — Giovanni33 said: "...The 4th revert was a real 3RR violation, howwever, it was on accident, and once I noticed it a few minutes later, I self reverted...I did not restore the long standing version of sourced material back from Yaf's changes (which lack consensus), until after 24 hours...." (...links added later by Endroit)


 * 2. Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story (May 2007)
 * AN3 reported by: Evilclown93; Result: Warning by Tariqabjotu
 * Opponents: John Smith's; (In talk page, restored a thread started by 82.18.125.110)
 * Proponents: Giovanni33; (Removed it)
 * 3RR vio: 17:01, 22 May 2007, 17:43, 22 May 2007, 18:49, 22 May 2007, 18:54, 22 May 2007
 * Evasion: claiming a 3rd party of personal attack (21:07, 22 May 2007)


 * 3. State terrorism by the United States (May 2007)
 * AN3 reported by: MONGO; Result: Page protected by Jossi
 * Opponents: Yaf, Morton devonshire, Dman727, Tom harrison; (Sample edit: "Noam Chomsky argues...")
 * Proponents: Charred Feathers, Giovanni33; (Sample edit: "Some scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that...")
 * 3RR just over 24h: 18:55, 29 May 2007, 07:04, 30 May 2007, 08:16, 30 May 2007, 19:53, 30 May 2007
 * Evasion: by accusing MONGO of an equivalent 3RR vio (20:43, 30 May 2007)


 * 4. State terrorism by the United States (June 2007)
 * AN3 reported by: Merzbow; Result: Page protected by Sanchom
 * Opponents: Ultramarine, Yaf, MONGO, Arkon, Zurishaddai; (Sample edit:  "U.S. foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky argues that...")
 * Proponents: Giovanni33, Stone put to sky, Kukini; (Sample edit:  "Some scholars, such as U.S. foreign policy critic, Noam Chomsky, argue that...")
 * 3RR just over 24h: 00:47, 28 June 2007, 20:38, 28 June 2007, 21:49, 28 June 2007, 01:19, 29 June 2007
 * Evasion: "I was restoring valid sourced material" (18:40, 29 June 2007) — Giovanni33 said:  "Thanks for not blocking me, and removing the block. It was the right thing, esp. since I was restoring valid sorced material from those editor who were blanking it, without consensus. Even, then, in protecting this article, I did not violate the 3RR rule...."


 * 5. Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (July 2007)
 * AN3 reported by: Ultramarine; Result:  Closed by Proabivouac who is under probation
 * Opponents: Ultramarine; (Sample edit:  "... human rights controversies.")
 * Proponents: Giovanni33, Proabivouac; (Sample edit:  "... allegations of state terrorism by the US military.")
 * 3RR vio: 03:35, 11 July 2007, 10:23, 11 July 2007, 21:16, 11 July 2007, 22:14, 11 July 2007
 * Evasion: self reverted (23:06, 11 July 2007)


 * 6. Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (July 2007)
 * AN3 reported by: MONGO; Result:  No block by Kafziel
 * Opponents: MONGO; (In talk page, changed section title to "State Terrorism edit confict")
 * Proponents: Giovanni33; (In talk page, changed section title to "State Terrorism edit confict with Mongo")
 * 3RR vio: 07:56, July 17, 2007, 08:11, July 17, 2007, 08:20, July 17, 2007, 08:56 July 17, 2007
 * Evasion: blaming MONGO (18:51, 18 July 2007)


 * 7. Criticism of George W. Bush (August 2007)
 * AN3 reported by: Tbeatty, now DHeyward; Result:  Giovanni33 blocked 2 weeks by Heimstern, overturned & reduced to 3 days by El C based solely on "Proabivouac's investigation"
 * Opponents: DHeyward, A.J.A.;  (Removed this image with a caption that said "Bush sits immobile for seven minutes after being informed about the September 11, 2001 attacks, while children read to him from the story "The Pet Goat".")
 * Proponents: Giovanni33, BenB4; (Added it back)
 * 3rr w/ gaming: 17:53, 12 August 2007, 18:09, 12 August 2007, 19:15, 12 August 2007, 16:14, 14 August 2007, 00:06, 15 August 2007
 * Giovanni recruited others to carry on the revert war, and then 21:44, 12 August 2007
 * Evasion: blamed others (06:27, 15 August 2007) — Giovanni33 said: "...Take a close look at my block log and tell me when was the last time I was blocked for 3RR. It was over a year ago...."

Gaming by Giovanni33, Part 2 - Abuse of AN3, using it repeatedly to get John Smith's blocked
Giovanni33 reported John Smith's to AN3 four times. This accounts for the last 4 out of the 6 blocks in John Smith's block record.


 * 1. Great Leap Forward (March 2007) — Legitimate report
 * AN3 reported by: Giovanni33; Result: John Smith's blocked 24 hours by SlimVirgin
 * Proponents: Giovanni33, HongQiGong; (Added into "External links" section: "http://monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm")
 * Opponents: John Smith's; (Removed from "External links" section: "http://monthlyreview.org/0906ball.htm")
 * 3RR vio: 20:04, 2 March 2007, 22:11, 2 March 2007, 22:32, 2 March 2007, 22:41, 2 March 2007


 * 2. Type 45 destroyer (March 2007) — Signs of gaming
 * AN3 reported by: Giovanni33; Result: John Smith's blocked 48 hours by Crum375
 * Proponents: Mark83, Giovanni33; (Giovanni33 did a straight revert of everything John Smith's did, after Mark83 tried to reach a compromise with John Smith's)
 * Opponents: John Smith's; (tried to move a news report out of the lead section, and into various different locations of the article)
 * 3RR vio reported: 22:55, 9 March 2007, 23:07, 9 March 2007, 23:40, 9 March 2007, 23:48, 9 March 2007, 10:54, 10 March 2007, 17:54, 10 March 2007 (Not all of them are reverts)
 * WP:STALK suspected: Giovanni33 joined an ongoing edit-war, in a topic of no interest to him, solely to push John Smith's over the limit.  In the AN3 report, Giovanni33 wrote: "Edit waring with two editors, including one administrator. He would keep on reverting if it were not for the fact that the admin and myself both are adhereing to the 3RR rule. Smith does not, hence the 3RR violation above in 7 reverts over this issue...."


 * 3. Mao: The Unknown Story (April 2007) — Controversial report
 * AN3 reported by: Giovanni33; Result: No action by Deskana, overturned & John Smith's blocked 72 hours by El C, then unblocked immediately by Deskana and then El C recused himself afterwards
 * Proponents: HongQiGong, Giovanni33; (Added "Gao Mobo" into a section containing comments by "Kaz Ross" of the University of Tasmania)
 * Opponents: John Smith's, 81.182.58.94; (Removed "Gao Mobo")
 * 3RR vio reported: 12:43, 4 April 2007, 18:12, 4 April 2007, 18:46, 4 April 2007, 21:02, 4 April 2007 (the report itself was false, since these links do not show 4R)
 * Opinion was split, on where the 4R actually occurred (if at all): El C: 4R (23:56, 4 April 2007), HongQiGong: 4R (19:17, 5 April 2007), Bladestorm: 3R (21:13, 5 April 2007)


 * 4. Mao: The Unknown Story (September 2007) — False report
 * AN3 reported by: Giovanni33; Result: Both blocked 48 hours by Dmcdevit, Giovanni33's block extended to indefinite by Durova
 * Proponents: Giovanni33
 * Opponents: John Smith's
 * 3RR vio reported (1st part: Mao: The Unknown Story): 09:31, 12 September 2007, 16:47, 12 September 2007, 17:37, 12 September 2007, 06:28, 13 September 2007 (False report, since the 4th was self-reverted 15 minutes later, and the 3rd is not even a revert).
 * 3RR vio reported (2nd part: Bruce Cumings): 22:05, 11 September 2007, 09:32, 12 September 2007, 06:31, 13 September 2007, 18:35, 13 September 2007 (False report, since the reverts occur over a span of over 44 hours)
 * This false AN3 report eventually caused Giovanni33 to be indef blocked, triggering this Arbcom case.

--Endroit 05:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusations
Sockpuppetry accusations for either party appear to be either unfounded or old (over a year ago).

John Smith's:
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/John Smith's — Unconfirmed as of April 2007
 * Suspected sock puppets/John Smith's — Unconfirmed as of August 2007

Giovanni33:
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33 — Confirmed last in August 2006; thereafter unconfirmed as of July 2007
 * Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni33 — Unconfirmed as of May 2007

More to follow. I'll work on it over the weekend.--Endroit 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

AN3 Reports, Blocks, & Near Blocks
CAUTION: The 2 lists below go back to August 2006 only. They do not cover any incidents prior to that.


 * John Smith's:


 * Giovanni33:

--Endroit 04:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added ANI incidents to the table above. If I skipped any major incident please let me know, and I'll add it in. More details and analyses to follow... It may take a week or two.--Endroit 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Folic_Acid
(originally posted on the talk page)

Regarding "Revisionist History" and content disputes
In response to ElC, while I respect his opinion and that he differs in that opinion from the one John Smith's holds, I strongly disagree with the content dispute over the veracity of the claims of Jung Chang in Mao: The Unknown Story is relevant to the topic at hand. While I'm not an expert on the claims made by the book, it seems obvious that no consensus on the validity of the book's claims exists, even among serious Chinese history scholars. Even the page on the book itself contains both criticism and praise for the book - I don't think anyone can claim that professors holding PhDs from places such as Princeton, the London School of Economics, and the University of California are not qualified to comment on the book and its story. So, while Giovanni33 and ElC are certainly entitled to their opinion, it seems disingenuous for ElC to portray John Smith's as attempting to "inject Changism" into China-related articles, while there exists no consensus on whether "Changism" (if, indeed, such a term or concept even exists) is an improper, untrue, or non-neutral interpretation of history. Again, while I respect ElC and bear him no ill will, this "evidence" which he presents on the main page seems little more than a screed against John Smith's editorial view. I'd respectfully request that in weighing ElC's statement, that it not give much weight to content disputes, to the supposed perception of the PRC government, or to the allegation that this one man is singlehandedly ruining Wikipedia's reputation.

Regarding Giovanni33's evidence
I trust that the Committee will also take these assertions with a grain of salt. While Giovanni33 seems to want to call John Smith's a "Probable Puppeteer," let it be shown that, in fact, John Smith's was NOT linked to the mysterious Hungarian IPs, as stated in his Suspected Sock Puppet case here. It seems more than a little misleading and disingenuous on Giovanni's part to portray that as "probable" sockpuppeteering, when John was judged to have no connection to those other users. Regarding the assertions of edit warring and incivility, this seems to be a clear case of WP:KETTLE, so again, I plead for grains of salt with this, since it seems that even if John stays within the rules, Giovanni assumes bad faith and accuses him of malfeasance.


 * ''Nanking Massacre--Same edit warring, multiple reverts in the course of a day:


 * ''So as not to break 3RR he waits a day and reverts 3 more times:


 * This goes on until the article gets protected by admin Deskana.

So, while my post here is not evidence in and of itself, I feel that it needs to be said, so as to offer a bit in the way of balance.

Respectfully submitted, --Folic Acid 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute not evidence
With all due respect, El_C's "evidence" is essentially a complaint on the views of Mao: The Unknown Story. To allege it as being "revisionist" history (of a bad variety) is clearly misrepresentating the situation. Anyone who reads the article on the book will see that academic views are split on it. He is also quite clearly wrong in accusing me of trying to push a certain sort of POV in regards to the author, as I have edited few articles to insert her allegations. On the Korean War page, after initial scepticism I accepted the removal of her comments along with those of Bruce Cumings. What I think El_C is taking exception to is that I have resisted attempts to make Wikipedia generally somehow "reject" her views.

This rather betrays his real motivations. It isn't that I'm POV, it's that I oppose the POV edits made by people that share his particular views that want to turn articles that mention Jung Chang into unbalanced works that slate her and ignore the support she has received. I'm not sure he has really said much of any real evidence to this arbitration case. The idea that Wikipedia's credibility is being undermined by mentioning Jung Chang's works is quite laughable, as is the idea that the PRC cares - the PRC blocks access because we have articles that are not censored for their critical content. The real credibility issue comes from people like him protecting a disruptive editor like Giovanni and attacking people for their views - which is rather ironic given Giovanni likes to play the victim-card by pretending he is somehow a victim of a grand political conspiracy.

I am not a puppet-master
As Folic Acid said, the allegations made against me were rightly not supported. For a proven puppetmaster to claim I might be one, even after the reviewing administrator rejected them, is quite ridiculous - I hope the allegation is dismissed again here.

El_C protects Giovanni
I believe El_C is partisan and protects Giovanni when he should not. Whenever Giovanni has come up on WP:ANI, El_C is there to point the finger at others and even decide to reduce/remove blocks without gaining support from the community/admin group. He has never blocked Giovanni for his disruptive behaviour, though he block me for 72 hours even after User:Deskana had protected the page and decided no further action would be taken - he says he made a mistake in that case and he did accept Deskana's removal of my block, though he felt justified in handing it out in the first place. I have also never seen El_C rebuke Giovanni for his behaviour (and his evidence here is also devoid of any reference to Giovanni's disrespect for Wikipedia rules).

I think there is a relationship between Giovanni and El_C that is more than regular and clouds his judgment.

Giovanni wikistalks
Giovanni has never shown any interest in modern navies, yet he showed up on the Type 45 destroyer page to revert while I was in dispute with another user. Even a neutral observer User:HalfShadow observed that Giovanni has wikistalked me.

Giovanni edit-wars
Giovanni's block record speaks for itself. He edit-wars across many articles, only changing his behaviour when he believes he is being watched or under threat of blocking. He also games the system by reverting 3 times in 24 hours, continuing after that period is over. He even makes bad faith 3RR reports in order to try to trick admins to block users he is in dispute with.

I have edit-warred in the past, but generally with Giovanni. I have found it frustrating that he will not discuss edits, using invalid arguments to revert them. He does not compromise when discussing matters, always wanting his own way. On the other hand I will compromise, even reverting edits I have made if good points are made as to why I should do so. I got a bit of a bee in my bonnet over style issues concerning BC/AD and BCE/CE, but that was over a month ago (and not something I'm worried about now).

Giovanni is playing a game when he makes comments like he "doesn't want to see me banned". This is a guy that has been indef banned more than once (in the last case by an admin that hasn't been in dispute with him), been discussed on WP:ANI multiple times and given plenty of last chances to change his behaviour (e.g. agreements by admins to unblock him, his self-imposed 2RR which he did not follow recently when reverting on the Mao: The Unknown Story page). On the other hand I haven't had as much as a RfC made on my behaviour. He is the person that needs to modify his behaviour and accept he has a problem, rather than point the finger at others and pretend he is a victim/good wikipedian. Remove me completely from Wikipedia and he will pick another fight over something else. Remove him and I would be able to edit most articles in peace. So if he wants to "help me", he can start by not reverting any changes I make in relation to Chinese history/Jung Chang/etc and seek support to amend them on the talk page first. John Smith&#39;s 18:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: comments by El_C
El_C's assertion that he only wants Giovanni to receive fair and equitable treatment and isn't partisan are not supported by his actions. He does not rebuke Giovanni or ask him to change his ways. He has not blocked him, only reducing or threatening to remove blocks. He complained on ANI that it was unfair to indef block Giovanni because he his actions had not been discussed "enough" as it were, yet he wanted me to be placed on revert parole with Giovanni despite the fact my behaviour had never been brought up on ANI. Additionally, he refused to allow our conduct to be discussed separately - why? Because he knew Giovanni would receive a tougher sanction and wanted his "pound of flesh" for Giovanni getting in trouble yet again. This shows his partisan nature.

On the allegation of me POV-pushing on the book's article, I did take an interest on it early on. However, what I want is balance - El_C fails to outline my POV-pushing as he knows an objective person would not see it, though maybe he hopes his allegation will carry some weight even if not supported. John Smith&#39;s 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did I say I was not still interested in the articles in question? I said I took an early interest in the book - which I did. Where exacly is the problem with that statement? Also I challenge you to identify where I was "POV-pushing" so we can all see it - otherwise you are just throwing mud in the hope some of it will stick. John Smith&#39;s 19:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * El_C that is one of the weakest allegations of POV-pushing I have ever seen. The first was part of a dispute as to whether a link should be included because it was an amateur work. The second was condensing a point to just include the author of the cited review, rather than also include someone Giovanni's old teacher just because he sat next to Professor Ross at a conference - see Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story where he says "I know this because I've been in this class" . The third was from the Asian Review of Books - if you actually check something as basic as his website you will see he has written on Chinese history himself, even if it isn't widely published material. If it was so obviously POV, why wasn't it challenged by our revert-happy user Giovanni, who regularly reverts changes I make without discussing it first? I think you're clutching at straws. John Smith&#39;s 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually removing someone's additions without explaining why can be regarded as vandalism, unless it was to remove vandalism, etc. Being in mediation on other points is not a reason to revert any changes someone makes to an article. If Hong had questioned the review's author on the talk page or something too that would have been different - but he didn't.
 * As to the qualification, I subsequently agreed it shouldn't go back in. John Smith&#39;s 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In responding to Durova's comments, El_C fails to note the failure of the informal action-plan was due to his insistence that Giovanni and myself be lumped together in discussing restrictions. Durova, as far as I can see, was happy to have my conduct discussed (as was I) wherever it was suitable. However, there was no consensus to apply the same remedy to both of us. If he insisted there could not be an indefinite block for Giovanni as there was no consensus on that point, then by his own logic he should have acknowledged I should not be placed under the same controls as Giovanni when there was no consensus for that either. El_C wanted one rule for Giovanni and another for myself, which I think is another example of his partisan approach to this matter. If he had been objective and balanced, he would have allowed Giovanni and myself to be "reviewed" by the community separately.

Equally his complaints about Endroit's criticism of his behaviour and highlighting of the ideological links between himself and Giovanni are, I think, an overreaction. Endroit is hardly showing contempt for these proceedings by being directly critical of El_C's bias towards Giovanni/against myself. To claim otherwise as El_C is doing is to try to obscure unwanted criticism. John Smith&#39;s 19:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: comments by Giovanni
I have only objected to mentioning Gao for the sake of it, as we do not have anything to quote him on. His colleague was quoted so I agreed to her comments being included. John Smith&#39;s 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you are ignoring the fact that we do not have anything to quote this guy on. His "qualifications" are not relevant because he is not being quoted. If you had a direct quote from something he had written, no problem - but you didn't. At the start what I found on the guy was on his university page, which showed he was teaching "Chinese language and Chinese studies subjects". So of course I would question his ability to comment at the time! But the fact he wasn't being quoted became far more important subsequently.

You also ignored where I came across John Walsh's comments - on a review website. Plus, as I said, why didn't you raise this matter when I added them in the first place? John Smith&#39;s 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni is misrepresenting what I said. I never claimed he was the only person I have had disputes with. Strangely enough, though, he is as far as I can see the only editor I have not been able to resolve differences with. Also there are "mainstream" media reviews that both praise and criticise the book - I'm not sure what he's trying to prove with the December 2005 Guardian article. All I can suppose is that he's doing his best to slate the book as if that means it's ok to censor its use in Wikipedia/make arbitrary changes to articles without discussing it first on the talk page. John Smith&#39;s 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the removal of Bruce Cumings' controversial statements, I was far from being the only editor that supported such a move. The discussion is on Talk:Korean War/Archive 5 to read. I originally removed the citations so someone else could find decent sources, but it was then pointed out the claims should go too. Even User:Hong Qi Gong, who has disagreed with some edits I've made on various articles, agreed Cumings "was used to make some very biased claims". John Smith&#39;s 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As to Giovanni's complaints over my disagreement over this so-called "parity", as I have said more times than I can remember I accepted a review of my actions. I opposed being lumped together with Giovanni when my conduct had barely been discussed. What did Giovanni have to fear from separate reviews of our activities? He probably knew he'd be put under heavier controls, as he'd been reported on WP:ANI so many times, thus wanted to use the opportunity to drag me down with him. John Smith&#39;s 21:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As to Giovanni's claims over undue weight, I'd like to see what "undue weight" edits I made in the hours before he reported me for a 3RR vio. Because as far as I can see I didn't make any edits that could possibly be seen as that - how is re-organising the introduction to an article (Mao: the unknown story) undue weight? How is mentioning the name of a critic from a cited reference in an article (Bruce Cumings) undue weight? Giovanni is pulling a classic trick, trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by claiming he was reacting to someone breaking the rules. It's ironic he's doing this given Endroit's reference to such tactics in his evidence. John Smith&#39;s 22:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 edit wars
Giovanni33's edit warring is not restricted to Mao: The Unknown Story. An example of his edit warring that I witnessed was at Criticism of George W. Bush in August of 2007:, , ,  ,. This case of edit warring led me to block Giovanni33 for two weeks (taking into account his history of edit warring.

El C reduced Giovanni33's block
After my block of Giovanni33, I posted an ANI for review. After several admins and established users endorsed the block, , , , El C stated his intention to reduce the block barring strong objections from the blocking admin. Despite my statement that I did, in fact, have strong objections, and similar objections from AuburnPilot , El C did in fact shorten the block counter to the opinion of most of his fellow admins, a unilateral action that he intended to repeat at the more recent discussion. While I do assume that El C's actions were meant in good faith, his willingness to take unilateral action in this way seems to me to be a concern. Heimstern Läufer (talk)

Neutrality
I do not edit in the areas of interest to Giovanni33 and John Smith's. One of the reasons I intervened when Giovanni33's behavior recently came up on ANI was because my thorough lack of previous history on the case made it unlikely that my actions could be construed as bias. Giovanni33 had an exceptionally long block history, a record of confirmed sockpuppetry, and a sampling of his edits confirmed that this was someone who was not operating collaboratively.

I extended Giovanni33 an unblock offer after his unblock request had already been denied at review. His response (which underwent substantial revisions) essentially tried to link his remedy to a remedy on John Smith's. I have no bias for or against John Smith's, but I expect to see a case made for a remedy before I implement one.

So I requested the discussion move from WP:ANI to WP:CSN for procedural reasons: it's difficult to find effective solutions for established editors who run into trouble and I like to see these cases archived in a central location for later study.

Per WP:AGF, Giovanni33 (and to some extent El_C) ought to have supposed I acted impartially, or at least to have accepted my explanations at face value. This is reminiscent of Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal where one of the parties accused two administrators of bias for no other reason than that they had intervened and set limits to her behavior. In both cases that problem user had the ardent support of one established editor whose actions, although probably heartfelt, had the ultimate effect of encouraging rather than curbing the problems that led to arbitration. Durova Charge! 14:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.