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

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motion to contact all involved
1) Requesting all involved parties and admins to be contacted, from previous disputes & edit-warring. See /Evidence#AN3 Reports, Blocks, & Near Blocks on where to look for the involved.--Endroit 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Please notify all Please notify the "Reported by" editors & all admins in each incident. If necessary I can contact everyone on behalf of Arbcom, so just let me know.--Endroit 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This does not seem like a good idea to me, and I also don't think it's how we typically proceed in these cases (parties who commented on a proposed ArbCom case before it was accepted are contacted naturally, but that's different). Of course anyone is welcome to comment on this ArbCom case, but I don't think we should make a point of trying to drag nearly everyone John Smith's and Giovanni have ever had a dispute with into this case, which is essentially what we would be doing if we contacted everyone involved in past blocks and, especially, past WP:ANI reports. I'm sure that would be literally dozens of editors. This case isn't exactly a secret, so contacting all parties to past disputes just sounds like an unnecessary move that would heighten the Wikidrama, which we really do not need at this point. I'm sure anyone who has something to say will find their way here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bigtimepeace, here. Bad idea.Giovanni33 21:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

Undue weight
2) If their following is verifiable, significant minority viewpoints should be covered in articles about the disputed topic. They should not, however, be given undue weight, and should not be misrepresented as the majority viewpoint. Insignificant minority viewpoints should not be covered at all.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Seems relevant. Picaroon (t) 02:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely seems relevant, though I think "their following" should be reworded as it's a fairly ambiguous phrase as written.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle, minority viewpoints should be clearly attributed in a fair fashion--Endroit 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Like BigT I think it needs to be reworded, as although I understand where Picaroon is going with this it is a tad vague at the moment. John Smith&#39;s 06:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's a central issue in this case, and as I'm in touch with several China academics on the question (who are also supporters of WP and encourage their students to use it), I know they are looking at this issue (and this case!). WP's credibility is paramount, and we should protect it.Giovanni33 05:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, NPOV is policy. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, with BTP's concern about "their following."  Folic ' _ ' Acid  16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring harmful
2) Chronic edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia. Excessive reversions may lead to imposition of a ban under the Three revert rule, see also Edit war.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This was proposed by Giovanni33 at 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Excessive reversions" What is that, exactly? This is far too vague, though of course edit-warring is not good generally. John Smith&#39;s 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support. "Excessive" I believe is meant to be taken as in excess of the 3RR rule. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, if by "excessive reversions," you mean that 3RR should not be violated. Less than three reverts, while irksome, should be allowable under normal circumstances.  -- Folic ' _ ' Acid  16:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection considered harmful
3) Article protection undermines Wikipedia's collaborative nature and should be used sparingly and temporarily. Repeated protections of a single article is disruptive, and editors who repeatedly cause protections due to edit warring may be blocked for disruption.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This was proposed by Giovanni33 at 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Protection is often necessary for many different reasons - I don't agree that it is disruptive even if it has to be used more than once on articles. John Smith&#39;s 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Respectfully disagree, per my comments at Talk:Jake Gyllenhaal. People who edit-war across a number of articles should be blocked, but if protection can be used instead of blocking on a single article, that's all for the best to get them talking on the talk page or attempting dispute resolution. Of course, there comes a point when there is no good-faith effort to resolve the dispute by one or more parties (through discussion or dispute resolution), so then block. But until then, protection is preferable as blocks are both personal, and prevent dispute resolution. Unless we are going to indefinite-block people, then the dispute just won't disappear due to handing out a pair of edit-war blocks.  Daniel  01:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this proposal. When people repeatedly resume editwarring on the exact same article once protection expires, they should be indefinitely blocked instead of seeing the protection reapplied (they can be unblocked if they agree not to edit war any more). The fact that it's only one article doesn't negate the fact that repeated editwarring on the same page is very disruptive, as is long-term protection. Regarding Daniel's comment, I think we are in general too conservative in identifying said "point". Picaroon (t) 01:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd prefer to be too conservative than too liberal. In the first instance, a short protection should be applied and parties directed to the talk page to discuss. Blocking someone hardly makes them more encouraged to participate in discussion or dispute resolution, as they a) can't edit the appropriate pages and b) will probably be pissed off.  Daniel  01:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC) WP:DRAMA isn't used anywhere? Wow...


 * This protection log says it all, really. The first instance was over a year ago, and we've proceeded to an arbitration case. Could some indefinite blocking have solved this nine months ago? We'll never know, but I have the feeling the answer is yes. Assumption of good faith is for when we have no reason not to think the user(s) in question will do better job of adhering to policy in the future. If protection and/or short blocks have failed three times or more, I think we can conclude they have no intention of doing so. Picaroon (t) 02:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that in this case that it has gone past protection-only. However, arbitration principles are general statements, not specific about the case (specifics go in findings of fact, as I'm sure you know, being more experienced with this process than most). The Arbitration Committee, in my opinion, would do well to discourage blocks where protections are possible and, more important, preferable. If this principle is reworded to emphasise that protection should be used initially but blocks later if the parties continue to revert with or without discussion and without good faith, I will support it fully.  Daniel  05:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Proposed 4, below.  Daniel  05:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think all the above points are valid. Page blocks can help to get people to cool down, and discuss, so that is why they are used. I'm fine with that. Other times blocks for all edit warring parties are indicated. Which is best is a case by case decision. But, I think we should get more serious about edit warring. A little allowance for that encourages it as an editing practice. Some seem to get away with this regularly, and thus POV push, since others get blocked when they stand up to the pov warrior. This includes tag teaming, and not using the talk page provide sound and valid arguments for the edits. Editors should not be using revert to "vote" back and forth among versions (they should not vote period as that is the lowest form of form over substance (didn't Jimbo once say "voting is evil?"). When editors engage in this edit warring nonsense, all parties should get short blocks, but esp. those that are  using it as a disruptive tactic after losing the merits of the argument on the talk page. This is esp. the case when the article gets repeatedly protected as a result. I've noticed that a group of editors get together to basically "attack" an article by starting a revert war and get the article protected in a damaged state, and so on. These editors are being disruptive. My point, above, is just a corollary to the negatives of edit warring because its results in article protection, which is itself a form of disruption. I think this is an opportunity for arbcom to make a strong point about this and perhaps set in some new norms among admins regarding this kind of behavior. I have in mind the kind of things we've seen repeatedly on the Allegations of US terrorism article. In the case of the Mao article, John Smith edit warred and violated 3RR--alone against many other editors. He was reported by instead of an appropriate block, the page got protected. I also don't believe in indef banns, unless its a vandal. All editors can be reformed, even if it means a topic or article ban, after repeated violations within a a relatively short period of time. Lets be tough, consistent but not harsh.Giovanni33 05:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that a group of editors get together to basically "attack" an article by starting a revert war and get the article protected in a damaged state, and so on. Who is this, then? Don't make vague complaints - be specific, or it will appear that you're attempting to smear others through general, unsubstantiated comments. John Smith&#39;s 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The group that did this to the Allegations of US terrorism article, right before it was protected a couple months ago. They came back and started it again, and it got protected again (at least this time we had a couple of weeks to make improvement to the article before the attacks came). To your credit you have not been guilty of this. They are far more organized and sophisticated.Giovanni33 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it's worth noting this is in relation to disputes separate from ours. John Smith&#39;s 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. That is why, even if you don't believe me, I do not think you should be banned. You are only guilty of edit warring, gaming the system, being unreasonable (or just stubborn), gaming the system, some meat/socketpuppetry, sometimes a little uncivil, a little wikistalking, and an occasional POINT violation. Nothing that a 1RR parole and/or a topical restriction, and some stern rebuking won't cure. You have never engaged in any kind of vandalism, even of the sophisticated variety. And, I think you are operating from good faith assumptions, i.e. you really believe what you say and argue for, and are not trying to be disruptive for ends that you know go against WP's core policies. This places you in a category of the reformable editor who, with intervention, can be molded into a productive, net positive, editor. That is my goal.Giovanni33 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Giovanni, given your own behaviour I doubt very much you can point label me in such a fashion. You have edit warred, gamed the system, been very unreasonable, made point violations, wikistalked and I wouldn't be surprised if you indulged in meat puppetry - I think the priority should be rehabilitating you, rather than you pointing the finger at others to try to distract from your own faults. As for myself, the sock report on me wasn't been supported by the reviewing admin. Now I know as far as you're concerned it's probably guilty until proven innocent, but I really think you should drop the puppet claims - it makes you look like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel in desperation. John Smith&#39;s 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why self imposed restrictions were given as an option, to avoid Arbcom all together. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly Disagree. While protection is irritating, especially to those who have a personal stake in the subject matter, I firmly believe that page protections are an invaluable tool for administrators to counter problems just like these - editwarring and revert-warring - not to mention the shenanigans of the ubiquitous vandal.  -- Folic ' _ ' Acid  17:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection and blocking
4) Administrators should endeavour to use temporary protection on articles to prevent edit wars, rather than blocks, especially when the issue is confined to one page. All users involved should be directed to the talk page and dispute resolution to try and reach a consensus solution.

In the event that the reverting continues after protection is lifted or expires, or a disputant refuses to discuss but rather revert, reverters should be warned and blocked accordingly (per Edit war and Three-revert rule). However, where good-faith discussion is continuing, blocking will generally only inhibit discussion and dispute resolution, which is undesirable, and protection should be considered first.

Administrators are counselled to evaluate the potential consequences of blocking compared to the consequences of protecting, and make a decision which is in the best interests of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and resolving the specific dispute in the future. In most cases, this means protection should be used before blocking, and blocking only for disputants who do not contribute, in good-faith or at all, to discussion or dispute resolution attempts on the appropriate talk pages. Failure to discuss but rather revert has the net effect of causing disruption.

4.1) Administrators should endeavour to resolve genuine but heated content disputes using temporary page protection and dispute resolution, in preference to blocking, since the latter excludes legitimate concerns on the grounds of poor expression by their proponent, which does not usually resolve the dispute long term, nor address the underlying issue.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yes, I think that's better. John Smith&#39;s 08:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed.  Daniel  05:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed 4.1, wording by FT2 following discussion about how superflously-worded 4) is. Thanks FT2 :)  Daniel  11:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; Note I don't have a view on the debate itself here, not having read it all. All I've done is some drafting and sharpening of the existing {tl;dr} proposal. I've also struck out the original, I *think* that's your intent; if I'm wrong please revert me. FT2 (Talk 11:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Afterthought (minor): possibly put "Within reason..." or "...in the first instance..." to the first sentence, since it is not expected that editors should be endlessly (or over-) tolerant of unreasonable behavior. An editor with a single strong viewpoint and tunnel vision can only sometimes be brought to the table, and makes it harder for others to do so. FT2 (Talk 11:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree to 4.1--Endroit 20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Template
5) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

False AN3 report (replaced by # 5 below)
1) This Arbcom case was triggered by an indef block on Giovanni33, based on this false AN3 report by Giovanni33 against John Smith's.
 * Rephrased and replaced by item # 5 below.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Opposed. It missing the mark given that this case was triggered because JohnSmith refused any parity for this edit warring and 3RR vios, which I correctly reported, and for which he was correctly blocked, yet again. The blocking admin warned him that if he refused, it would go to arbcom where he could receive more severe sanctions. Thus, this was the trigger. The AN3 report only triggered a 48 block for each party. The indef block was triggered by a separate report in which the year old socket puppets my opponents always bring up, seeking my head, and an admin taking the bait (against community consensus, causing it to be overturned.) In finding a solution that would make everyone happy, JohnSmith refused, and that is the trigger of this case (of course everything is related).Giovanni33 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Giovanni, it was you (and El_C, maybe unwittingly) that caused this by insisting I agree to the same sanction as placed on you. I said quite happily that I would submit to community review. However, it was not for you to decide for the community what sanction I should receive. I can only guess your reason for refusing to let the community decide was that they would see you were the worse offender and put less stringent controls on me. After all I had no way to stop the community putting me under revert parole as well. John Smith&#39;s 19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed--Endroit 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (See this ANI case)--Endroit 19:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on Giovanni33's claim: The indef block (based on the false AN3 report) was the root cause which triggered this Arbcom case, although John Smith's refusal may have been a more immediate trigger. They're not mutually exclusive.--Endroit 19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that both parties have engaged in some problematic behavior, it probably isn't necessary to have a finding on exactly which incident triggered the arbitration case being filed and accepted. If the point here is that one of the parties intentionally filed a false report, or that a block on someone's block log should be disregarded because it was made in error, then that finding could be proposed without getting into a sterile debate about exactly why the case is in arbitration. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, simple does it. Item # 5 below should now supercede this item.--Endroit 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not sure how much it actually matters, but the Arbcom case was due to the inability for all to agree on self imposed restrictions. This was due to some feeling as though parity in the self imposed restrictions was not required. The block was already over turned at that point. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 and John Smith's have edit warred across multiple articles
2) Giovanni33 and John Smith's have persistently edit warred against each other across multiple articles, some of which are topically unrelated to each other.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - I would think this is a pretty easy one to see given everything that's been said on this case. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The proposal is too superficial. HongQiGong's name shows up in my evidence, as having sided with Giovanni33 on significantly numerous occasions.  There are actually 3 revert-warriors concentrating on the Mao/Jung Chang dispute:  Giovanni33, John Smith's, and HongQiGong.  HongQiGong is least likely to venture into unrelated topics, while Giovanni33 is the most.--Endroit 23:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was worded to be simplistic. Giovanni33 and John Smith's have edit warred against each other on multiple articles - true or false?  That's it.  I'm not opposed to digging deeper into the issue once we can at least acknowlege this very simple fact, and this proposed finding is not biased against either party involved.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree: Giovanni33 has edit warred against John Smith's, DHeyward, A.J.A., MONGO, Ultramarine, and Yaf.  Conversely John Smith's has edit warred against Giovanni33 and HongQiGong.  I'm sure there are others involved, but the major players are covered in my list.--Endroit 23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for acknowledging that John Smith's and Giovanni33 have edit warred against each other.  And please - John Smith's has edit warred with more than just me and Giovanni33.  Just off the top of my head, during the BC/BCE issue, you can add at least PHG, KillerChihuahua, Black Falcon, etc, to the list.  But this section is not for evidence gathering is it?  It's a simple fact that the two have edit warred against each other on multiple articles.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 and John Smith's have both wikistalked each other
3) Giovanni33 and John Smith's have both wikistalked each other - while involved in a content dispute with each other, they have both shown up to revert edits at other articles that are being edited by the other, where these articles are topically unrelated to their content dispute. Giovanni33 shows up at "Type 45 destroyer", John Smith's shows up at "The War Against the Jews", and John Smith's shows up at "Theory of everything".  Checking article histories will show that those reversions are the first edits they made in the articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Disagree - Whilst I had not originally edited the two articles mentioned, I did have a genuine interest in the article content, history, philosophy, etc. Whereas Giovanni has never shown any interest in military affairs at all. Also, Hong, if you checked the history you'll see I made a proactive, positive change here. This is what I was trying to do, as I felt the version I had earlier reverted was poorly phrased. Note that Giovanni didn't revert my change there. If I had been wikistalking I would have reverted him again. On the other hand Giovanni reverted 3 times on the Type 45 destroyer page. That shows he was definitely wikistalking. John Smith&#39;s 06:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can Wikistalk and not violate 3RR. The intention is the difference. As the proposal says, you both Wikistalked each other, it does not specify a date it ended. You have already admitted to doing it, and have accused Giovanni of it, so that makes both of you having done it. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not put words in my mouth - I have never said I wikistalked anyone. If you believe that wikistalking occurs simply through editing an article after seeing someone else doing so, then that would make the overwhelming majority of wikipedians wikistalkers. I suggest you read my statement where I said that I had a genuine interest in the articles and attempted to improve on them (giving an example). John Smith&#39;s 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you had those pages on a list of articles you were going to get to, then decided to pop in on them? Or are you stating its not wikistalking because you did not have malicious intent. If that is the case then I Oppose this fully and the below since it does not seem as either of you had malicious intent. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You think that reverting several times and then reporting me for a 3RR violation is not malicious intent? John Smith&#39;s 14:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see where I made the mistake, Endriot said you were wikistalking in April, my apologies. However as Endriot points out, there appears to be Wikistalking in both directions. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Two negatives don't make a positive, SevenOfDiamonds. I maintain that I haven't seen any evidence of a WP:STALK violation by John Smith's, even before April.--Endroit 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed - Evidence is presented in the text of proposed finding. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree - This evidence shows that Giovanni33 deliberately stalked John Smith's for the sole purpose of getting John blocked. That is a far greater type of harassment, per WP:STALK.  John Smith's stalking don't appear to have the same level of harassment involved.  Also, edits shown above by John Smith's appear to be rather ideologically motivated, while Giovanni33's is just gaming, as explained in my evidence.--Endroit 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see how John Smith's was ideologically motivated to revert, as evidenced by his... err...  empty edit summary, and the ideological explanation such as "Undid revision 122171576 by Giovanni33 (talk)"...  On two articles that he's never edited before...  Excuse the sarcasm, but seriously, give me a break.  And again, I'm not saying Giovanni33 was innocent of wikistalking.  I'm saying they both are guilty of it.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you don't read the content being edited, HongQiGong. And this by Giovanni33 is a far more evident type of WP:STALK than your mere 2 examples.--Endroit 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In your link, you provided evidence of Giovanni's wikistalking - please read my comment again, especially the part where I wrote "I'm not saying Giovanni33 was innocent of wikistalking". Thanks.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, your evidence does not show proof of wikistalking by John Smith's beyond April. Mine does, for Giovanni33.--Endroit 01:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, there's evidence of wikistalking by both parties. However I think this should be a fairly irrelevant FOF--the edit warring between these editors (and the remedy for it) is what matters in this case. The fact that some minor wikistalking happened in the process is pretty inconsequential.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni has had many chances to reform and not changed his behaviour
4) Giovanni has had multiple opportunities to reform his behaviour, based on the lifting of a month-long block on the promise not to break the rules again (MONGO, 11 August 2006), warnings and blocks, a self-imposed 2 revert parole to avoid further action and multiple WP:ANI reports where multiple admins (who have not been edit-warring with him) have recommended either long blocks or an indefinite ban, but has been let off - sometimes on the intervention of an admin like El_C. Proposed. John Smith&#39;s 08:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Opppose. My block log speaks for itself: clear indication of proven track record of not edit warring and as a result I did not have a single block or incident for close to one whole year, despite continuous, productive, and colaborative editing accorss wikipedia, including many controversial subjects. That refutes the false contention above taht I have not significantly reformed and changed my behavior, which included socketpuppets. No more.Giovanni33 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your block log (and Endroit's evidence) shows you have gamed the system. It is clear that you have edit-warred, despite being let off blocks and being reported to WP:ANI - as User:Heimstern said, one can edit-war without getting a 3RR block. The fact you seem to believe it's ok to revert pages provided you don't get blocked for 3RR rather indicates you haven't actually accepted your behaviour is wrong. John Smith&#39;s 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverting your policy violations is not wrong, its the right thing to do. Why do you think we have a revert option for? Its for more than for vandalism. I was only wrong to continue to do so myself, instead of reporting you, or wait for others to revert your UndueWeight violations. Regarding regular edit conflicts over content, I no longer edit war as before. However, you never changed but are displaying a pattern of editing indicative of a very immature editing practice characteristic of a newbie--which you are not. Hence you edit war with everyone about any disagrements, even silly things like the BC/BCE issue, and that is why your 3RR block log has many recent blocks, whereas mine does not in over a year. Reverting is still valid but edit warring (excessive reverts over a topic is not ok). As I said many times, I accept fault, and that is why I'm fine with the 1RR limit. However, the problem is that you are not fine with that for yourself, which means that the problem lies with you not acknowleging your disruptive editing practices.Giovanni33 22:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Support: The following admins have endorsed an indef ban on Giovanni33, at one point or another: Dmcdevit, Moreschi, Durova, Tom harrison, Until(1 == 2), Ryulong, MastCell, Butseriouslyfolks, Aude, Anonymous Dissident.  Giovanni's block log and the page-protect logs are conclusive proof of disruptive edit-warring by Giovanni33, which has continued up until now as shown in my evidence.--Endroit 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

False AN3 report
5) Giovanni33 filed this false AN3 report against John Smith's, in September 2007.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Oppose, on the grounds that its being called a false report. Reports shows a valid 3RR vio. I also bring up the edit warring accross articles on related topics as an example of just that--not a 3RR. That is made clear on my report (and that is common to show that besides a 3RR violation, that user is edit warring in general, and thus needs a "cool off" block.Giovanni33 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. It's clear that I did not revert four times on the Mao: The Unknown Story page - the 3rd "revert" was an entirely new edit, which does not count. On the Bruce Cumings page, my edits were well outside 24 hours. John Smith&#39;s 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It does count. You undid other editors edits. The fact that its on two different issues, (1. adding in "in their eyes,", and 2. removing the "controverisal" language, and inserting quotes for "praise,"--each of these two times, adds up to four--hence a 3RR violation. The policy states undoing any edit.Giovanni33 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not undo any edits - a reversion is not an edit. If it were then people would be restricted from editing articles after someone had made a reversion, which is ludicrous. John Smith&#39;s 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. A reversion is an edit, and you did undo others edits to a version you were edit warring over. Each one of those 4 I listed counts. I've seen it applied in exactly this way several times, including against me.Giovanni33 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly think you're mistaken. If I was changing a word or something over the previous edit I had made, you'd be right. But making a completely different edit isn't a reversion in my view. Maybe that's something for the arbitrators to discuss/consider. John Smith&#39;s 20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed--Endroit 15:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Going over the 3RR report, it appears to be sound. Can you explain what is not correct about it? Just to clarify it was my understanding that 3RR meant 3 reverts total on an article and not 3 reverts of the exact same thing. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, the 3rd "revert" on the Mao book page wasn't a revert - it was a new edit. Simply editing the page doesn't count as a revert. On the Bruce Cumings page, my edits were well outside 24 hours. John Smith&#39;s 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The edits speak for themselves. This AN3 report by Giovanni33 (at 12:44, 13 September 2007) has NO technical 3RR violations.  The edits in those articles show John Smith's adhering to a 2RR rule, when Giovanni33 submitted the report.  Others are welcome to analyze the situation as well.--Endroit 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALK by Giovanni33
6) This evidence shows that Giovanni33 wikistalked John Smith's in order to get John blocked, a violation of WP:STALK.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. Another classic faliure to assume good faith on the part of Endroit, whose conduct so far here has been rather shameful. I did not go edit in the article for the purpose of getting John Smith blocked. That is absurd. JohnSmiths is reponsible and controls his own actions and conduct. No one forced him to violate the 3RR rule, yet again. I simply reported him, as is the correct thing to do, since many times I have not, just just warned him. That doesn't work, so a block was in order.Giovanni33 20:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. It is true that Giovanni tried to get me blocked by either wikistalking and then reporting, or making incorrect reports on me. The evidence is quite clear, especially with the block received over Type 45 destroyer. For the block lifted by Deskana, when User:HongQiGong brought the lifting of the block up on WP:ANI here, User:Bladestorm pointed out that there hadn't actually been a 3RR vio in the first place. John Smith&#39;s 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed--Endroit 19:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I do not think we can assume one person had good intentions and the other did not. I am worried about the lack of a mirror proposal for John Smith. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally the evidence shows good intentions or not. As to the lack of a mirror proposal, it's for you or someone else to present evidence to show that. Endroit doesn't have any evidence for a mirror proposal, so why would he make it? John Smith&#39;s 14:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless Endroit is literally able to see inside Giovanni's thoughts, he of course has absolutely no way to know that Giovanni "wikistalked John Smith's in order to get John blocked." We absolutely cannot have finding of facts based on hunches, and unless we find a comment Gio made where he noted "the reason I came to this page was to try to get him blocked" there will be no evidence to support this FOF. Also, no one can make someone else breach 3RR--it is always John Smith's (or any other editor's) decision to do that. Endroit's efforts to blame most of John's blocks on Giovanni are absurd, but the idea that we can seriously have a finding of fact which essentially states that we know what Giovanni's intentions were is even more ridiculous. Obviously I would be equally opposed to any sort of "mirror" FOF proposal for John Smith's.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The evidence speaks for itself.--Endroit 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously it does to you, but it will not for most others. None of the evidence shows that when Giovanni went to Type 45 destroyer--which is the only stalking evidence you offered--his objective was to get John Smith's blocked. That is what your FOF states, and you simply cannot prove it, because you cannot prove Giovanni's intention, and quite frankly making an effort to do that is silly. Again, John Smith's made the decision to edit war on this article all by himself--there was nothing which forced him to revert over and over again in violation of the 3RR policy. Giovanni certainly did not make him do it and indeed John was rv warring with Mark 83 (and arguably already violated 3RR) before Giovanni showed up. Also, John did indeed receive a 48 hour block from an admin for his actions there, but apparently that is also Giovanni's fault. Perhaps if you reworded this FOF such that it did not express certainty about Giovanni's intentions it would be more plausible.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence shows that Giovanni33 reported John Smith's at AN3 repeatedly for a total of FOUR times (after revert-warring with him), whether or not John Smith's actually was guilty of any 3RR vio. This is a type of harrassment, and a violation of WP:STALK, as well as WP:GAME.--Endroit 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at your evidence, and see you have only listed one article, where you list as "suspected." Moving from a suspicion to a statement of fact, is a fallacious. What are the other three alleged article? Its not in evidence that I can see. On the other hand, there is evidence pointing to JohnSmith's possible stalking for more than one article. I wonder why you ignore that and only focus on me? Care to answer that question?Giovanni33 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Endroit, John Smith's was blocked for those reports every time--you do know that, right? One of the blocks was reversed with the specific comment that it was "irrespective of the validity of the block," but because the page was protected. Reporting someone for edit warring and violating 3RR is not harassment or stalking, it's what folks often do when someone is edit warring and violating 3RR. The common sense conclusion to draw from your evidence is that John Smith's has been blocked several times for edit warring, yet you want us to view those blocks as evidence of nefarious intent by Giovanni. I don't think that will work. If you want to make an accusation about wikistalking specifically (which arguably both editors have done, though you only seem interested in going after Giovanni) then craft a FOF that deals solely with wikistalking, not with "wikistalking in order to get someone blocked."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight Violations by JohnSmiths
7) The evidence shows that John Smiths has for years violated undue weight by inserting the claims and theories of Jung Chang's book, "Mao: the Unknown Story,"  into main history articles.

Proposed byGiovanni33 20:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. The evidence provided (maybe Giovanni could link us to it) does not show that I have been doing any such thing. There is no consensus that the work in question is an "affront to scholarship" and to claim otherwise is incorrect. John Smith&#39;s 15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Oppose. That content dispute is irrelevant to the case before the committee, especially since there certainly no consensus that Jung Chang's theories fall outside the principles that govern the policy regarding undue weight.  -- Folic ' _ ' Acid  20:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue is quite central to this case, as can be seen from the clear acceptance of this as a proposed principle relevant to this case. And, there certainly is consensus among the China experts (those who specialize in the study of China's history and politics) as to the outrageous nature of this book, which is an affront to scholarhip. To propagate it into main history articles is a severe violation of a sound and vital WP policy.Giovanni33 14:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that undue weight is irrelevant - I'm saying that you've asserted, but not proved, that John Smith's is pushing Jung Chang's theories, nor have you proven that references to Jung Chang's theories are, in fact, violations of undue weight. Thus, I oppose this assertion as a finding of fact.  In my opinion, it's not even close to being "fact." -- Folic ' _ ' Acid  16:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an irrelevant issue as it would be a background finding related to the issue of edit warring. However I don't see specific evidence relating to this on the evidence page, though both Giovanni and El C have asserted that John Smith's has pushed Jung Chang's theories across multiple articles. Could be relevant if true, but evidence definitely needs to be provided first (a large number of diffs for different articles with short explanations would probably be sufficient).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the subjects and topics about which the edit warring occurs are necessarily important. That edit warring occurred at all seems (to me, at least) to be the more relevant issue.  I don't think ArbCom's role is to make a judgment about the veracity of Jung Chang's theories (I could be wrong) - I think they're more concerned with settling the conflict between these two editors.  -- Folic ' _ ' Acid  16:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I don't think the ArbCom will deal with the content aspect. But they are obviously looking at the behavior of both of these users as a whole. If John is consistently pushing a POV across many articles that leads to a violation of undue weight--like I said there needs to be evidence of this which so far I have not seen--I think that would definitely be relevant and might indeed be a root cause of much of the edit warring. Obviously settling the conflict is the goal of the case, but if one of the underlying issues is POV pushing that leads to edit warring then I think a proposed FOF along those lines is reasonable. Also, whether or not Jung Chang's book is a valid source (personally I think we should use it as a source rarely or never), obviously undue weight provisions can be violated simply by giving her arguments too much play in certain articles, even if we decide that the book is a good source to use. Again though, Giovanni or someone else needs to supply evidence that John has done this rather than simply asserting it, and if that does not happen than obviously I would not support this FOF.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Giovanni33 is placed on 1RR for one year
1) Due to persistant edit warring, Giovanni33 is placed on 1RR for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Like Endroit, I also think Giovanni should receive a ban in addition to subsequent probation. John Smith&#39;s 17:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed--MONGO 17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'd support a ban from 3 months to a year, followed by a one year 1RR probation.--Endroit 17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I too support something more than parole. This user has had many chances to reform and has not changed ways. A further ban is also called for. Xmas1973 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, given parity for both sides. I'd also support a topical bann on Mao related articles (for both parties) for 1 year, provided a 6 month good user provision is added.Giovanni33 19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, best way to resolve this I think, and is appropriate for both editors. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, agree with BigTimePeace. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems rather light for a user with such a long history of edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Light like your undoing the block of this user for edit waring, 03:29, 4 September 2007 Heimstern (Talk | contribs) unblocked TDC (Talk | contribs) ‎ (For equity), while you theny you singled me out for a 2 week block, and ignored the other party, ultra conservative Tbeatty who has a long block log for edit warring?' That is what was rather "light." Meanwhile my "long" record is a long record of NOT edit waring for close to a year when you gave me that 2 week block for what you agree was not even a 3rr violation. So we can see what your view of light is: it depends on who you are!Giovanni33 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, this arbitration is not about Tbeatty or TDC, nor about my blocking decisions. Furthermore, you seem to continue to labor under the belief that it's only edit warring when you break 3RR, which is far from the truth. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But, I did not break the 3RR rule. The last block for that was LAST YEAR. Yet, despite this, you blocked me for 2 weeks, based on a block log that was much older than my edit warring conservative opponent. Since you are involved in this case against me (I also note you have nothing to say about John Smith), your admin conduct is fair game for me to comment on, which points to bias given the inconsistency on political lines.Giovanni33 17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I never said you broke 3RR. I said you edit warred. It is possible to edit war without breaking 3RR. But as for politics, I barely even pay attention to who supports what side when considering edit warring. Your block was based on edit warring alone, and if I had seen any evidence that Tbeatty was edit warring at the time, I would have blocked him as well (and yes, it's possible he was doing so and I didn't see it). You have assumed bad faith and decided that my block was political, which is not the case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, its a reasonable assumption to make when there are two parties edit warring with each other, and one party reports the other (in the case Tbeatty reporting me), and only action is taking against me. I'll take you word that you only saw my reverts against him, and did not notice, for some reason, the fact that he was one other person who was edit warring with me over the issue with multiple reverts. However, one is reasonable to assume, barring you saying you did not notice it, that this fact is seen, for it is rather obvious that usually one can not see one without also seeing the other. Thus, the quetion becomes one of impartial actions. The pattern shows favoratism that happen to align with politics. Of course that could be purely conincidental. I raise it as a logical suspicion given the pattern I've noticed, i.e. despite long standing edit warring AND 3RR violation, you reduce the block on ultra-conservative TDC. I don't think you can say you did not see he was edit warring when you make the block reduction "for parity." Yet, there is no other partiy when it comes to me and my opponents. That, I see, as a clear double standard--in pratice, if not in intent.Giovanni33 17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My evidence shows Giovanni recruited others to carry on that revert war, and then this edit by his meatpuppet. That's a 3RR vio if you include the meatpuppet.--Endroit 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your evidence is skewed and tainted with a flawed interpretation and condlusion that doesn't fit. This is one example. I notified other editors who were active on the talk page, to get other opinions about the content dispute. I have had no other interaction with these editors before, nor do I know them in any way. Thus, they are not meatpuppets in any way. What I did was appropriate and its a commmon practice. In fact, its a sign that I did not want to edit war anymore, that I wanted to see where consensus was on the question and get it resolved. So your evidence against me, is really evidence in my favor when we remove your bad faith assumptions.Giovanni33 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I look back at it, Tbeatty did not even edit Criticism of George W. Bush at all on August 14 or 15, which was the time and article in question when I blocked you, so I'm having a hard time seeing why I should have been expected to block him, also. Never mind, username change threw me off. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. And for the record, now that you have explained that you didn't see it, I take your word for it and do not assume negative causal reasons for your action, even though I disagree with it.Giovanni33 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not correct. Tbeatty has changed his user name (which cleans his extensive 3RR block log btw) to DHeyward . He was the one edit warring with me and reported me. He was guilty of edit warring just as much as I was on the issue, at the same time.Giovanni33 17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is abundantly clear that Tbeatty is not John Smith's, and this is an example of why it doesn't make sense to apply equal penalty for John Smith's.--Endroit 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not Tbeatty, but JohnSmiths is JohnSmiths, who has his own extensive edit warring patterns, that makes this remedy (its not a pentalty--I dont' believe in punishment), quite suitable. These cures do not lend themselves to exact fits, etiher. That is why I'm fine with accepting parity with the restrictions, even though I feel his edit warring and 3RR far suprasses my own. Its one fits all in this case as the problem is excessive edit warring. That has got to stop and a 1RR parole is a logical application for the problem.Giovanni33 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So Giovanni33 is attempting for some sort of a plea-bargaining deal here at Arbcom, where Giovanni33 admits to equal parity with John Smith's, in exchange for Arbcom ignoring his disruptions against Tbeatty and all the others.--Endroit 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You were attempting to confuse two issues, apples and organges: One is in regard to unequal treatment, producing my block log, and how only one party is being signed out (much like all of your evidence, btw), and the other issue that you confused this with, is that John Smith also edit warred, and what these other POV warriors did is besides the point. Stop making up stuff, and putting words in my mouth.Giovanni33 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So Giovanni33, if it's not a plea-bargaining offer, and if you're not confused between Tbeatty and John Smith's.... You're nevertheless evading any sanctions for your other disruptions against Tbeatty and the others, by insisting for equal "parity" with John Smith's.--Endroit 22:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you come to that conclusion, at all. Did I ever say I exclusively edit warred with John Smith? Nope. Has John Smith exclusively edit warred with only me? Not at all (contrary to the picture you paint, he has edit warred with many more editors as user Hong pointed out, such as PHG, KillerChihuahua, Black Falcon, etc). This is not about evading responsiblity. Its about working out an appropriate solution that is even handed, i.e. recognizes that both parties in this case appropriately can be dealt with through a 1RR parole. This is so even though John Smiths edit warring surpasses mine, per the evidence. None the less, the same restriction is apropos. As far as Tbeatty, and the other edit warriors, I'm sure if they continue in their ways, they will find themselves equally sanctioned, and rightfully so.Giovanni33 22:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Hopefully the 1RR would calm him down. I actually think he should be banned for one year.-- Jerry 21:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I prefer Proposal 5 below (3 month ban, then 1 year 1RR).  If 5 is rejected, then I'd support this.  -- Folic ' _ ' Acid   00:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's is placed on 1RR for one year
2) Due to persistant edit warring, John Smith's is placed on 1RR for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed--MONGO 17:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This Arbcom case was triggered by an indef block on Giovanni33, based on this false AN3 report by Giovanni33 against John Smith's. We are discussing John Smith's here only because Giovanni33 used John Smith's as his defense, and a leverage to reduce his block.  Also, based on this comprehensive list of AN3 Reports, Blocks, & Near Blocks in the last year, there is a big inbalance of incidents between the 2 editors.  Considering that John Smith's largest prior penalty was a 48 hour block and there were no other warnings against him, a more lenient penalty is in order.--Endroit 18:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. And, Endroit is wrong. This case was triggered because JohnSmith refused any parity for this edit warring and 3RR vios, which I correctly reported, and for which he was correctly blocked, yet again. 1RR parole is obviously indicated at the very least given JohnSmiths vast and extensive edit warring across several articles with many editors, and many 3RR blocks, including this year (much more than me, considering I have no 3RR vio blocks this year, period). I refer to my evidence, including an amazing 37 reverts made on a single day (Aug 6th), and in each article, reverting another 3 times for each the following day.Giovanni33 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This punishment seems disproportionate. It seems unfortunate that the opponent in this case is such a concerted abuser. It would be unfair to tar John Smith's with Giovanni33's offences brush. Xmas1973 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please propose a finding of fact detailing some instances of this editwarring. Remedies need findings of fact so people looking at the closed case can figure out what the issue with the editor was. Same with the other proposal. Picaroon (t) 18:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's basically based on each user's block logs and I think these proposals are fair...I would not like to see either editor banned and hope they can instead do all they can to hash out differences on associated talkpages...the 1RR forces them to do this, or face a block. We could add an escalation scheme...first block 24 hours, second, a week...etc.--MONGO 05:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. As I do for Giovanni.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, agree with BigTimePeace. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Not sure that John Smith's actions warrant a full year.  I'd support something less.  -- Folic ' _ ' Acid   00:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good behavior
5) If, in six months, either parties can demonstrate good behavior, they may request that the Arbitration Committee lift their ban or parole.

Proposed by Giovanni33

Not supported. If a year-long restriction is imposed, it should last a year. If the arbitrators want to review someone's behaviour, fair enough. But I don't think people under restrictions themselves should ask to be let off/ask someone else to ask they be let off. John Smith&#39;s 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why people under restriction should not be the ones who bring to arbitrators attention a changed situation for consideration of good behavior. Those who are under restriction have the most interest and its logical that they would be the ones to present a case for consideration. Why are you opposed to that? WP, states in its policies, that it recognizes changed, good behavior. That is an important principal to be upheld, in principal at least.Giovanni33 20:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned from editing about Mao
3) John Smith's (using whatever account or IP address), and Giovanni33 are banned for one year from editing content about Mao Tse-Tung, or China under Mao (applies to any article).

Proposed by:Giovanni33


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose for myself - completely over-the-top and not necessary. Also disproportionate for me as you have little or no interest in Chinese history. Finally far too vague. John Smith&#39;s 21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally it's fairly meaningless for yourself as your interest in this area is more the articles on Jung Chang and her book, rather than Mao or Chinese history more generally. Indeed you're much more interested in editing articles like Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. Given your edit-warring there maybe it would be more appropriate if you were banned from editing content in relation to articles like that. John Smith&#39;s 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually JohnSmith misses the point. This is due to POV pushing that violates Undue Weight, not edit warring (what the 1RR parole is for), or what articles one is most "interested in." Irrelevant. I've edited a lot on China related articles, and the conflicts happen when I have to try to correct JohnSmith's violations of content policy. Also, since Jung Chang and her book is all about Mao and China under Mao, its completely inclusive, and stops him from POV pushing her theories all over WP's articles.Giovanni33 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so this is about censoring anything mentioned by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday? Well at least you came out with it, rather than tried to hide behind something. Proves that it isn't about a fair balance between us, but trying to control what I do. You may have edited China-related articles in the past, but generally you've given up on that. Which is why this wouldn't mean anything for you, whilst it would for me.
 * Also, as Picaroon said, you need to present findings of fact and get them agreed upon before you can make allegations of the sort that I "violate content policy". Otherwise it looks like you're trying to throw mud at the wall in the hope some of it will stick. John Smith&#39;s 22:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * Support. As long as we are discussing any article where it is the main topic, not any article where it is mentioned. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Giovanni33 says: "This is due to POV pushing that violates Undue Weight"  I continue to maintain that Giovanni33 has not proved the allegations that John Smith's is POV-pushing, or that his edits violate WP:Undue Weight.

Giovanni33 is banned for 1 year and subsequently placed on revert parole
4) Giovanni is banned for one year and then placed on 1RR for another year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * *Proposed. Withdrawn per below suggestion. John Smith&#39;s 16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I think a year is a bit excessive; although I'm afraid Giovanni is heading for a ban, three months and 1 year revert parole seems more just at this point in time.  Maxim (talk)  (contributions)  11:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that one year is excessive.  Daniel  11:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 is banned for 3 months and placed on revert parole
5) Giovanni33 is banned for 3 months and placed on revert parole for a year after the ban expires.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Support, after withdrawing remedy 4. John Smith&#39;s 16:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Opposed. There is no need for a ban. The issue is edit warring and your undue weight pov pushing. Both will be solved by a 1RR limit, and a topical ban on Mao related articles. What is the point of not allowing either of us to edit any article for a period of time?Giovanni33 18:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's the only way you will learn to respect the rules - you've been reported to the ANI board too many times. Plus you've implied it's ok to edit-war so long as you don't get blocked for 3RR vios. John Smith&#39;s 18:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Anyone can get reported for anything on ANI. I could have reported you, as many others could have, many times on ANI. Not doing so doesn't materially affect what you did, and have been doing (btw, you have been reported multiple times to ANI, lest you forget). Your multiple blocks are more relevant. In any case, you still avoided the question: how is a ban supposed to accomplish what a 1RR parole doesn't? How is stopping all editing helpful for WP? I have repeatedly stated its not ok to edit war, hence the reason I have reported you on AN3, and why we are here, with my proposed 1RR restriction for both of us (although there are plenty of other editors who could use it but are not a party to this case). Yet, its you who oppose any such restrictions. So, its you who has yet to even acknowledge, yet alone, learn that edit warring is not acceptable.Giovanni33 20:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, you've been reported and a number of administrators not involved in your disputes have supported a longer-term ban than you received. As to why a ban rather than just parole, maybe you should ask Maxim. You also dodged my point about believing edit-warring is ok if you don't get blocked for it. John Smith&#39;s 20:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You made the bann proposal, so I asked you. No, I do not believe edit warring is to be condoned, blocked or not blocked. I think I have made that clear. But, I think the corrective action is a 1RR limit.Giovanni33 21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a ban proposal as others had suggested it (so I formalised it). But it was Maxim, a neutral third-party admin, that said he thought a 3 month ban was just. Maybe he could give a justification you would accept - I'm not sure I can say anything that you would feel was fair comment. John Smith&#39;s 22:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, similar to remedy 4 except for ban length.  Maxim (talk)  (contributions)  11:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Opposed Unless John Smith's is placed on revert parole as well. It takes two to edit war.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a suggestion above where I am placed on revert parole. John Smith&#39;s 16:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. After being banned for sockpuppetry last year, Giovanni33 apparently pledged to reform, yet continued to receive short-term bans for violations of 3RR.  I believe that a more serious penalty is in order.   Folic ' _ ' Acid  01:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support-- Jerry 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose in non-bold text. We're dealing with two basically good editors who have a tendency to edit war with one another and with some others on topics about which they feel passionate. The goal of this ArbCom case should be to end that behavior and still allow them to contribute constructively as both have done in the past. I think the process of the ArbCom case itself (along with 1RR or a similar remedy) will effectively chasten both Giovanni and John (both of whom are obviously reasonable folk) such that any sort of ban is unnecessary. Let's separate them to different corners and move on rather than resort to unnecessarily draconian measures for established and productive editors.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that a user with over 40 blocks (including over 10 blocks for revert warring) is a good editor. I'm not saying that John Smith's is a constructive editor, he had also been blocked six times for violating 3RR, but he is a relatively better editor. I mean 40 blocks are just incredible, I don't see why Giovanni shouldn't be banned an expiry time of indefinite and how banning him for 1 year would be excessive.-- Jerry 18:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * JohnSmith has had 6 blocks for 3RR violations this year, compared to my zero blocks. So I am the relatively better editor. I have no idea where you get 40 blocks from. That is sheer fantasy. I suggest you look again.Giovanni33 19:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Giovanni's block log is deceptive. You need to read it closely, because a number of the "blocks" are back and forth blocks and unblocks from admins. I think the real number is between 10-15 (which still is not good of course) but most of them were from over a year ago. I think both Giovanni and John are good editors because they make constructive contributions to the encyclopedia irrespective of their block logs. We want the edit warring to stop, we don't want to lose prolific editors who often make valuable contributions.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How would an editor like Giovanni be "lost" through a temporary ban? John Smith&#39;s 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He would not be able to contribute for the period of the ban, which I do not think is desirable. This is what I was getting it, perhaps "lose" was not the best word choice.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's his own fault for his continual violation of the rules. You can't hide behind the excuse "oh, I make contributions too". The rules apply to everyone or they don't. John Smith&#39;s 06:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not a logical response to the point raised. Its a non-sequitur.Giovanni33 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it was quite logical. The rules apply to everyone, and it is sometimes necessary for wikipedians to receive a block. That they are "valued" members of the community cannot give them protection from a remedy to rectify their behaviour. John Smith&#39;s 19:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I support a remedy to deal with Giovanni's edit warring (and yours), just not the one you propose here. There is nothing in Giovanni's behavior or in our rules which require us to block him (or in your behavior which requires us to block you). Since I think you both make good contributions I feel a 1RR limit makes a lot more sense. Giovanni's good contributions don't absolve him of any wrongdoing, but it does suggest to me that a block is too harsh of a penalty.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no "requirement" to block anyone, but it is an option. I'm not sure how a user having "good" contributions makes a block harsh. Blocks should be implimented based on the user's overall behaviour, and if they continue to cause problems such that administrators uninvolved in the disputes are going to recommend long blocks on WP:ANI then no amount of good works can outweigh that. John Smith&#39;s 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No argument has been made as to why a 1RR would not solve the issue. Thus talking about other punitive actions, unless its a type of "feel good revenge" type of thing, is simply not logical. We do not try to put a square peg into the circle spot, if it doesnt fit. The remedy has to be tailored to the nature of the offense. If its edit warring, then 1RR, with blocks being placed into effect for its violation, is completely adequate.Giovanni33 00:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually checked again, no doubt he has over 35 blocks (excluding the unblock bullets).-- Jerry 19:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Parole Violations
1) If JohnSmiths or Giovanni33 performs more than one content revert in any 24 hour period, or fails to discuss a content revert, any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week.

proposed by: Giovanni33


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: