Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/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.

Background comment and suggestions by Bzuk in regards to providing information
There is nothing wrong with providing expansive amounts of information however if the edits result in substantial changes to the affected article, one of the first steps would be to discuss the proposed change in the article's talk page. If the information that is submitted has no contentious issues then even this step can be eliminated; however if there are significant questions relating to content or grammar, readability and context, then the talk page or a sandbox page may be the best place to try out revisions and edit changes. Other editors may be alerted by their interest in the original article and a watchlist check will reveal that there is an upcoming major change to the article. If needed, then consensus-driven decisions can also be undertaken but if spelling, grammar, sentence construction and other format changes are the only edits, then the draft section can be posted and incorporated into the main article with a minimum of disruption. Re:Requests_for_arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence

1) I move that experienced editors point the way to resources such as spell checkers that may be available for Stefanomencarelli.

2) I move that Stefanomencarelli utilize or find assistance to obtain verifiable and authoritative English language (or translated into English language) reference sources. With the availability of a number of fine editors such as Attilios and admin rlandmann who are bilingual, a number of reference sources could be identified, and, if needed, translated for other editors' use. FWIW Bzuk 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This isn't a motion or request; this is a proposed remedy, or perhaps principle, and should go below. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This appears to be a reasonable course of action. --Red Sunset 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Motion by Bzuk in regards to working with others
3) I move that Stefanomencarelli create a series of sandbox project pages that are identified and linked on his home page.

4) I further move that requests for assistance be made on appropriate discussion and project pages to elicit advice and assistance. FWIW Bzuk 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)..

5) I move that any editing should be a collaborative effort and that "ownership" issues should not be involved. FWIW Bzuk 12:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC). Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This isn't a motion or request; this is a proposed remedy, or perhaps principle, and should go below. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:


 * This also appears to be a reasonable course of action --Red Sunset 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)



Suggestions from Akradecki
6) Here's what I'd humbly suggest to the Committee:
 * Given Stefanomencarelli's incivility and penchant for complaining about other users, I would suggest that he be enjoined from making comments about other editors in edit summaries and on talk pages, with the exception that he can address specific editors directly on their talk page (in other words, if he has a problem with me, he should address it on my talk page, rather than whining about me on BillCJ's). Further, I propose that any subsequent civility violations may be dealt with by increasingly lengthy blocks, without the need for any further warnings; he's had plenty, and should understand what's expected of him in regard to his behavior.
 * I would suggest that Stefanomencarelli be given the clear message that his desire to build wikipedia and contribute to articles that are seriously undercovered in the encyclopedia is very much appreciated, but that his lack of English proficiency is a genuine problem that needs a genuine solution, and that articles should be built in sandboxes in his user space. Once he starts this, I would suggest that he then invite other editors in WP:AIR to help with cleanup. I'd certainly be willing to do a bit of this myself. However, he also needs to know that this can be a time consuming process, and that he needs to exercise a bit of patience. Articles don't need to be perfect before going live, but then need to be fairly readable and properly sourced.
 * I would suggest that Stefanomencarelli be cautioned against excessive use of non-english technical sources, as they are not verifiable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This isn't a motion or request; this is a proposed remedy, or perhaps principle, and should go below. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * The suggestions provided are reasonable and "do-able" and address some of the more subtle aspects of this situation. FWIW Bzuk 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment by others:

Motion by User:Stefanomencarelli
I have discovered that BillCJ has reverted one more time my text submissions about Saab 37, despite it was both P-D and well english written, with tiny justifications. I see that Akra still continues (as Bill as well) to slander my self with 'soft' accusation of copyviol, without proofs and even interpreting as copyviol a PD source that i stated in talk page wheres was came from (Goebel site was used also in wiki.it and last year i attacked an user that forgotten to post where this text came from, so go figure if i would to forget to tell where this text came from..).

In fact, i have no assurance by guys like Bzuk, Bill and even Akradecki to not ruin my contributions with endless, burocratic and arbitrary roll-backs and forbiddions (even when providing english sources). To solve this it was suggested to close me in a apartheid condition, a sort of ghetto. Hmmmm....

Before to do this, i expect formal excuses by the three guys above, seen that i don't really like slanders, diffamations and arbitrary roll-backs, with a sort of selective system to exclude me by editing in the main articles (that's called often Mobbing). I would expect to be understood.

What if they confine my contributions without to have care of them (that' already happened and it happens also now), or pretend to modiphic them in a manner that is misleading respect their original meanings (this too was already happened)?

Terms like 'respect', 'honour', and 'presume good faith' are not contractable with apartheid. I can accept some conditions, like post before in talk, sandbox or whetever, but if monsieurs Bzuk, Bill, and even Akra (not to talk about EH101, my former and worse foe in wiki.it, but i simply ignore him here) not recognizes their arbitrary actions and subsequently apologies, it's really hard to believe that this 'final solution' will solve the problem.

Ex. see the endless discussion in the talk page of F-86, just because i dared to write 700 bites of datas found both in english and italian sources.

This has few to do with my bad english or italian sources, but much to do with abuse perpetrated by these gentlemens agains my activity here in wikipedia.

So that's the problem: am i granted to be not persecuted by the action of these guys? If yes, they must apologize to display good will, and not handle me just as a problem. This is deeply insulting to me. Solutions like Security walls are today on fashion. But i would not feel myself like a Gaza inhabitant, this is in the modern world a common solution ('let's build a wall, the guys outside are savages, Neanderthals, animals) instead to face peer-to peer with the 'others'(this is basically the reason of the fall of our globalized world, i am afraid to say).

All this above not means that i don't recon my 'limitations' and for some aspects, agree with all the suggestions. It means that i don't accept that the 'solution' will been just a wiki-ghetto while the abuses of the gentlemens above mentioned will pass as 'wikipedia defends', basically a lie. Let's understand this.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This isn't a motion or request; this is a proposed remedy, or perhaps principle, and should go below. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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=

Proposed set of principles/guidelines by Bzuk
I would recommend that in order to work more effectively with other editors that that the editor in question, Stefanomencarelli: FWIW Re:Requests_for_arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence Bzuk 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Join the associated project and task groups in which he would like to work. These groups are set up as a collaborative partnership that can be useful in linking with experienced and knowledgeable editors in the field.
 * Develop a series of templates that may aid in communication. I have noted that many editors have put up sections on their home/talk/sandbox pages that refer to constantly used references and resources. For example, once a reference source has been written out, the bibliographic record is "stored" in an accessible location and simply copy-pasted into articles that are being developed. A comprehensive list of "where to go" also is useful for memories' sake. These templates would eventually eliminate the continual revisions to a standard spelling or format.
 * Use the device of "telegraphing" intentions and inviting others to help and support the editor's work. It is then a  proactive and positive action that results in having "people on board" prior to any substantive edits being made instead of reacting to "challenges" resulting from presumptive or formative submissions that still need to be "crafted."
 * Ask for responses and comments rather than making statements. In many talk page discussions, there seems to be a long discourse that elaborately states the case; that method may be less than effective compared to a short, pointed and "tight" discussion point. Once the point is stated, asking for debate is the usual next step.
 * Deal with others as the editor would like others to deal with him. This may seem on the surface, to be a "given" but in reality, what a great deal of communications especially the sort of "long distance" text-only communications (even though we may try emoticons which I employ fitfully and haphazardly to show that my tongue is sometimes firmly in my cheek) do not do is to provide a full and "rich" picture of the interaction. This is only a suggestion but because we are essentially dealing with many new people, it is usually a good guide to go out of one's way to extend courtesies rather than taking commentary at "face value" since we do not get a face-to-face scenario and that "honey goes a lot farther than vinegar" in dealing with awkward and difficult situations.
 * Adopt a "friend" that may coach or mentor the editor in the ways of this Wickywacky world. If this suggestion is accepted, there is an onus on all parties involved in the work to live up to expectations and responsibilities but the "friend" may serve as an effective "sounding board" as well as a resource.
 * Take on a more pragmatic approach to dealing with difficult or trying editors. (Hey, it's only an avocation that people choose to do or not. In the great "scheme of things" all of these people are just people, not adversaries or competitors. Some may know more than you, some may not, it doesn't mean that they should be trounced or defeated instead, treat them as impediments and if nothing seems to work, well zip that, move along.)
 * Use the admins and experienced editors as a valuable resource team. Imagine that the abilities of some of the experienced and skillful team that you have with you can make you a much more powerful and effective editor. Learn to find out who is responsive and comes equipped to do the job you need, then why do it, ask them to do the "heavy lifting."
 * Accept and value the use of consensus-driven decisions. The strength of many is behind the consensus and is the basis of the Wikipedia framework.
 * Learn to work and share with others the information and knowledge you possess by developing the articles in which you contribute to GA status, a process which requires peer review.
 * Take on a project that will be "out of your comfort zone" to develop your writing and research skills more fully.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would like to see a comment here by other parties involved in this arbitration. FWIW Bzuk 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Honestly, I think we are way beyond the point where these guidlelines would be effective. Stefanomencarelli has made it clear that he will not accept any limitations on his behavior or actions that does not permit him to edit at will. In addition, even when he has agreed to certain restrictions, such as posting his text to talk pages first, he has shown impatience with the process. While these proposals are excellent and were offered by BZuk in total good-faith, I sincerely doubt that Stefanomencarelli is capable of abiding by them for any reasonable length of time, whether volitionally or intrinsiclly. - BillCJ 17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I commend Bzuk's suggestions, as in this manner; the serial roll-backs, edit warring, and all of the contentious issues that have pervaded so many articles should be avoided; allowing the best of Stefanomencarelli's hard work to enhance each subject and be acceptable to all. Despite BillCJ's reservations based on previous behaviour, Stefano should at least be given another chance to prove that he can contribute positively, especially now that matters have reached this level and that a close eye will be kept on the situation. --Red Sunset 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not support these suggestions, as for recent Evidence#Stefanomencarelli does not accept integrations for his posts, even in talk pages, where it is depicted how he reacts angrily to comments to his posts, even in talk pages.--EH101 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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:

Stefanomencarelli is harming the project
1) Though acting in good faith, Stefanomencarelli contributes such a great quantity of poor quality content to Wikipedia articles that the project would be better off without his contributions.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Throughout his edit history, whenever edits have been challenged, Stefanomencarelli has resorted to accusations of censorship although it was clear that only content issues were being addressed. Although he has been active in at least two or three different Wikipedia communities (with nearly simultaneous applications to Polish, Japanese, Portugese and English Wikipedia and Wikimedia: Commons with the statement of interest: "Hi to all, I am from Italy. I am interested in historical aviation and other heavy military hardware, such as tanks and ships. I can read and write only, essentially, in english or italian, or at best, french. I cannot contribute directly to this wikipedia, but i offer my availability to help who is interested in stuff like Italian historical aviation. Ask me in the discussion page, how i can help your wiki (obviousely in english or italian).", a very un-wiki like stance was adopted including little concern for consensus decisions, a belief that original research should be accepted, a claim that his resources should be accepted without question, a requirement that he solely edit and a vociferous defence including being uncivil and laying personal attacks. Re:Requests_for_arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence FWIW, revised Bzuk 07:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC).


 * At first I attributed Stefano Mencarelli's reactions to edits of his submissions to a lack of facility in English and the inevitable problems experienced by newcomers but gradually I began to notice a pattern of responses which included claims that other editors were not knowledgeable enough in the subject area, an indignant refusal to accept contrary opinions and then resorting to formal complaints to administrators, all of which revealed a much more sophisticated user. The use of the arbitration process appears to be an incremental device used to exact retribution as well as an affirmation of his editing style/use of references.


 * After sifting out content issues which were regurgitated and should be deliberated on relevant discussion pages, the remaining arguments Stefano has presented are merely rebuttals of the multiple instances of lack of cooperation, incivility and personal attacks, the primary concerns many editors/admins have identified. Although language issues are still the core of the problem, an underlying lack of decorum is evident throughout correspondence, edit summaries and discussions and is even now deployed in the arguments he has forwarded. Although "olive branches" have been extended on a number of occasions, Stefano has after initial begrudging efforts resorted back to a combative, vituperative manner still in evidence in these deliberations. Re:Requests_for_arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence Bzuk


 * Needless to say, this statement look to me an higly offensive one, moreover widely lacking of objective basis. And i want to remark that this could had been sensed months ago, not surely now that almost the 'long articles' are done by time. Obviously, i started this procedure whining about abuses made by other users, only to be accused now to 'harm wiki'. Good to know how my work is rated. Strangely enough i still have the neat impression that wiki.articles on italian aircrafts are far better than before.--Stefanomencarelli 10:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some issues that relate to Wikipedia use are explained by Stefanomencarelli in the following:,   and .FWIW, I believe that Stefanomencarelli's submissions were made in "good faith" but that a lack of understanding and acceptance of the collaborative process of editing in Wikipedia has contributed to the present morass. Previous statements by Stefano Mencarelli have clearly indicated a lack of civility in dealing with other editors. FWIW Bzuk 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Recent discoveries of Stefanomencarelli's requests for help on policy discussion pages revealed that in misrepresenting claims had led to well-meaning advice from Blueboar to pursue further redress and Father Goose (a relative newcomer) to propose as of 20:10, 16 October 2007, an ARBCOM (in the Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules forum) . This last suggestion was followed up on 12:11, 19 October 2007 with the actual ARBCOM, "triggered" by edits made to AgustaWestland EH101. The notification sent to both BillCJ‎ (09:51 19 October 2007) and myself (09:50 19 October 2007) was the same‎: "ARBCOM, Now it's the time. I call ARBCOM to decide this amusing staff. It involve you and BillBC. When it's enough, it's enough. See EH101.--Stefanomencarelli 09:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)." FWIW, these statements confirm that the action taken by Stefanomencarelli was a form of retribution for perceived slights. Bzuk 07:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per Requests_for_arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence. John254 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there are three core issues/facts, this one essentially sums up the first (the other two follow): the language is so poor that without extensive and time consuming rework by other editors, the affected articles are actually harmed rather than helped by these contributions.  AK Radecki Speaketh 03:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefanomencarelli's use of sources
2) In his articles, Stefanomencarelli frequently uses Italian print sources which are not available to English users (thus making them difficult to verify), and further he then translates these sources himself. Because of his poor command of English, such translations often very confusing, making articles difficult to clean up, and resulting in a further reduction of the verifiability of the facts presented.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I do with what i have. But it's not this only. The F-86 case is blatalant one: having italian printed source, coupled with internet english references, and still not enough to make a 'reliable datas'. Not to talk about Saab 37 Viggen, in which i simply sent a PD article to avoid troubles, english-written and internet available. Both were swiftly deleted.--Stefanomencarelli 10:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for your F-86F-40 'different' datas. My trials in talk, with a complete relaction about the stuff had no success at all. And i tried more than anyone else to find 'the truth' about this stuff, in spite of all accuses usually made to me about 'lack of civility', 'non-cooperating character' etc.--Stefanomencarelli 11:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The content issues can be resolved through dialogue in relevant discussion pages, demeaning comments directed at other editors and accusations of bias are not as easily resolved and continue unabated even in this forum. FWIW Bzuk 11:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment by others:
 * Added by  AK Radecki Speaketh 03:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefanomencarelli reacts uncivily when his contributions are further edited
3) Extensive diffs have been provided on the Evidence page regarding this editor's uncivil behavior. The source of such incivility is predominantly his reactions to users who have tried to edit or remove poorly written and/or poorly sourced material. Every edit screen contains a statement at the bottom which reads: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Remove entirely my edits, not even discussing or post them in discussion pages: Is this a 'fair mode' to handle other editors? Or simply, i am SM and so i must be whipped every time that i do something? I, still, have not reverted contributes made by others, this is a form of respect. Someone like Bzuk and Bill arrives, deletes all i write and not even bothers to explain why (Bill in particular). With other editors, that MADE edit modiphics (See Red Sunset) i had no trouble. But there is a way to edit and then improve an article, an one that is called trolling/vandalism and so on. In some cases, i rate these edits unjustified. If the above principle "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." was taken on letter, well this could be an authorization to make vandalisms at will. But it works only when i try to defend the work done to improver this or that article?--Stefanomencarelli 10:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Extensive commentary was provided in all instances including a "primer" on editing that was essentially ignored as commonplace errors in spellling, grammar and syntax continue to be made, revealing a lack of interest or care in the actual editing process. The edit war in the F-14 Tomcat article including a very telling comment by another editor, Chuck Sirloin   "This isn't a conspiracy to silence your contributions or the Iranian contingent. The fact is that the section you added was completely unsourced (no references) and to be honest, poorly written. I understand that English is probably a second language for you, but, while I appreciate your contribution attempts, it is not other editors jobs to fix the things you write just because you feel it should be in the article. Most of the things that you added are already covered in the article. --Chuck Sirloin 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)." FWIW Bzuk 12:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment by others:
 * This is the third in what I consider the three core facts/issues in this case, with the other two being enumerated above. Sadly, this incivil behavior has resulted in numerous Project editors, who would otherwise be willing bend over backwards to help a struggling newbie, to not want to have anything to do with him. After spending several hours at different times trying to clean up the grammar of different sections, only to have him whine and bite my hand for doing it, I am reluctant to do so further. I have proposed, below, a resolution that will entail other project editors to continue to be involved in working with Stefano. I am willing, although quite reluctantly, to do so myself, and it will be up to Stefano to demonstrate dignified, civil behavior in order to encourage folks to return to helping him.  AK Radecki Speaketh 03:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. As an example, Stefanomencarelli's refuses to apply WP:Talk policy, he insults and launches personal attacks within a talk page here when his contribution was reviewed by adding an official manufacturer reply to press accuses --EH101 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Rollback justifications
5) Part of Stefanomencarelli's original allegations in this ArbCom case involved claims that his edits were unjustifiably rolled back and/or reverted by the named parties. However, an examination of the actual rollback and revert diffs provided in Evidence shows that the rollbacks and reverts were justified.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Note, this finding of fact is based on possibly incomplete evidence. Stefano failed to actually show evidence by diffs of his allegations, so I went looking for him so that his allegations could be examined in the light of evidence; because he did not provide an actual list himself, I went to the three articles that have been most contentious, and which have been mentioned elsewhere in this case. Thus, the list of diffs is not comprehensive.  AK Radecki Speaketh 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.

Stefanomencarelli banned
1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Banishment seems to be the only workable solution to this point, as Stefanomencarelli has made it clear that he will not accept a solution that does not allow him to edit articles directly. (It means that i don't accept that the 'solution' will been just a wiki-ghetto while the abuses of the gentlemens above mentioned will pass as 'wikipedia defends', basically a lie. - BillCJ 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still ask for your apologies.--Stefanomencarelli 10:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I had not asked for nor seek this form of censure, I will not oppose it. FWIW Bzuk 12:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per the Stefanomencarelli is harming the project finding. John254 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Supported as for Bzuk's reported personal attacks - John's report how Stefanomencarelli is serially uncivil -   my PAs report since filing Arbitration --EH101 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefanomencarelli restricted
2) Until such a time as it is clear that Stefanomencarelli's English is greatly improved, he is to edit only in sandboxes in his userspace, or at the Project's discretion, in draft articles set up as project subpages, in order to allow for other Project editors to work with him to bring his text up to acceptable standards. This restriction to commence immediately, if he is not banned, or once he returns, if he is banned for a period of time.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If Stefanomencarelli accepts this soluiton (he has rejected it to this point), then it is accepctable to me. However, I question whether he could bear with this "apartheid" in the long term, and that he might also make life as difficult for those who try to assist him as he has those in the aritlcle mainspace, and request that one or more of the arbitrators be able to make adjustments to the solution should it prove unworkable. - BillCJ 23:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Given Stefanomencarelli's continued abuses, both in arbitration and on article talk pages (as outlined inEvidences), I can no longer support this option, even if he agrees to it. He has shown a fundamental inability to abide by even the most basic of Wikipedia polices and guidelines. His dicussions exhibit either a lack of comprehension of others' discussions, a deliberate ignoring of what they say and the points made and a twisting of those points, or a combination of both. See this diff and whole discussion as an example. There has been no let-up in his methods and attitudes on article talk pages with other editors during the arbitration period, while BZuk and I have tried to stay out of ongoing discussions, excpet where we felt it necessary to help other editors, per F-14. Even if he agrees to abide by some restrictions, I sincerly doubt he can constitutionally or volitionally abide them to a satisfactory degre. I am sadened to write this, but I truly believe it to be an accurate assessment, as will probably be borne out by responses. - BillCJ 18:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the continued requests by Stefanomencarelli for apologies from me and BZuk: You have filed Arbitration against us in order to secure apologies from us, among other things. Whether or not we owe you apologies WILL be determined by the ARBCOM. Until then, It would not be fitting for me to respond to your continued requests for apologies. You should have been aware that Arbitration was a long process before you filed for one, so please continue to be patient. - BillCJ 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This, however, must be coupled also with the admittions by this user above and Bzuk, about their manners that are basically far exceeding the need to 'preserve' encyclopedia'. Despite GFDL, there is still a thing called 'vandalism'. It's much similar to what he (they) did in several times.

I can use sandbox, discussion page and whatever else, but still i need assurances that some other users will not abuse of 'editing freedom' to trash my contributes like happened in several occasions. This, not to talk about 'copyviols' accuses, unfounded and unsourced, that were freely made to throw on me discredit, and never retired. This thing cannot be closed with 100'% one side guilth, while the other is an 'hero'.

And finally, i still not understand why all the anonimous critic interventions made against Bzuk and Bill were deleted. Sure that all them were only 'trollings'?

Ultimate thing: i'd like questions and comments directly with ARBCOM. I have here few 'fellows' that have something against me, i have troubles with language, sources and so on. It's easy for them throw me discredit at will, and pass to the reason well over their merits. Direct questions to me and to other users could be more effective at this point.--Stefanomencarelli 11:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer to last Bill statement. Differently by you and Bzuk i have not searched for you or whatever first in that days, considering that there was a relative 'peace'. Wisely, i have choice to not follow some guys with i am already in disagreement just to discuss with them and giving'em the possibility to go puntually here and start to cry against the monster called Stefanomencarelli.

Wisely, since there are 5 millions articles i thinked that there is enough space to avoid each other. Instead, not, and not only you two guys mixed in a discussion in which i was involved (and by all the evidence, ONLY because i was involved in it), but, since i have called for personal attack the low insinuation made by Bzuk ( i don't need babelfish, sorry, this thing is not new to me), you and a pair more have even deleted my simple affermation about Bzuk do you aware that this is a unecessary personal attack or similar words. This was called 'unecessary challenging' or something similar. So, the 'unecessary', provocatory statement made by Bzuk remained, while to me was censored a simple statement that called for a personal attack (and not was itsself a 'personal attack'). Deleting other posts in discussion is a thing to do WITH MUCH CARE. You did it and this is regarded usually as vandalism. Not happy enough, you two dear friends came here to whining about SM monster.

Differently than you, mr. Bill/Bzuk, i CARE about wikipedia and i made my work to IMPROVE it and this is in any case meaning ATTACKING other editors'freedoms. While i did my work there in the last days, collaborating even in the boring, long notes adjustations, while i gave further source contributions, and so on, what did you instead? Search me to provocke, and then crying here.

Obviously, all the fair words about 'collaboration' are gone with the wind. WHILE when my collaboration was called for some pages like SM 79 or Otomat i spent hours to cope with, all that the guys that 'suggests' to me to use sandboxes etc. are doing is... to search and provocke me with subdole statements, like the case of F-4 service page, already adversed by Bzuk, and always good to re-propose as war cause. This is so unloyal and ridicolous that i should not even bother to answer. Because it's clear that you are all but 'available' to collaborate, those same collaboration that are calling for me. This utter manners speaks a volume about your loyalty and good faith discussion. All you want is led me to a block regardless the reasons, the needings and so on. Needless to say i ask apologies one more time, seeing cleary bad faith here. Such a shame, of course.--Stefanomencarelli 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To make the thing more clear:
 * What's the point to search and provocke another editor like happened with Bzuk statement in F-14 talk page?
 * What's the point to ask 'collaboration' when all you did in these days was eventually go here and crying about SM atrocities
 * What's the point to delete a part of a post simply stating about a 'personal attack', seen that in a discussion page there must been very serious reasons to censure other editors?
 * What's the point to call for 'collaboration' when ALL the pages disputed, like G.91, B-50, CF-104 were leaved without any interest by who actually made his work of censor against my activity? C'mon, before scream that i must do my contributions in talks, then nobody cares furtherly to help those texts?? Let's make a proof, what if i post my paragraph about F-86 from talk to main page? I bet it will be reverted in five minutes or even less. Even if i prepared it in the talk. Nobody cared, except me, to re-work it and i bet, nobody is seriosly interested to do so. So when someone screams about the lack of 'collaboration' made by me, what does these monsiers made 'to collaborate' with me? Answers: nothing. So i call some false proposals as apartheid. Because there is only interest to block me in one mode or another. Simply put. Nodody cares to do nothing more. This is why i have last days started to edit newly in the main. If nothing else, i spente some hours to add things and hopefully improve wiki, while my oppositors do nothing 'constructive'.--Stefanomencarelli 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This singular campaign against "oppressers" is especially troubling as I have never had a particular interest in Stefanomencarelli other than in aiding a newcomer. His rebuffs of my assistance are in the extensive edit commentary record. After engaging in attempts to mollify behaviour, my most recent efforts have concentrated on my own specific articles of interest and only when "textdumping" occurs, a "tag" is placed so other editors can help Stefano because I no longer have an interest in "going that way." On a personal level, I wish him well and have continually spoken up for him in recommending him for an award as well as acknowledging that his contributions could provide information on obscure subjects that have been neglected in Wikipedia articles, however, I believe he has continually misread my intentions and those of other editors and admins. At first, I attributed a lack of English language skills but this complex and contrived arbitration has convinced me finally that he does not represent a positive element in the wiki community. Regretfully, Bzuk 17:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed, per the Stefanomencarelli is harming the project finding. While I understand that Stefanomencarelli has been offended in the past by this suggestion, calling it apartheid, it hopefully communicates that his desire to contribute to lesser-known, but no less important, subjects is still appreciated. As the creator of over 120 articles, and as an author who always builds articles in sandboxes first, I don't consider this a punitive restriction, and neither should he. It should also be noted that one of the two named parties here, User:BillCJ, also makes extensive use of sandboxes, as can be seen on his user page. If this method is good enough for other project participants, it should not be viewed as demeaning by Stefanomencarelli.  AK Radecki Speaketh 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is in my mind is a suitable proposed remedy, and I agree with the comments made by Akradecki that using sandboxes is not demeaning. --Red Sunset 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not support these suggestions, as for recent Evidence#Stefanomencarelli does not accept integrations for his posts, even in talk pages, where it is depicted how he reacts angrily to comments to his posts, even in talk pages, defining as trolls users who ask for integrations/corrections, pinpointing other sources available in English language on the web he refuses to consider. --EH101 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bzuk and Bill must answer to their abuses
3)They must recon and apologies for their provocking actions in the last weeks against Stefanomencarelli contributions, this thing cannot have only one part in wrong. Excess were made on both sides. For only one these above solutions were thinked, and this leaves free who was far away from be 'cooperative' in editing.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This was the reason why i did this segnalation, not to be considered a monster by my former persecutors. I repeat, if this discussion was started 2 months ago or similar, it could had been sensed. Talk now of sandboxes and 'rightfully total reverts' of entire contributions, it seems to me greatly wrong and outside any reasonable limit. Editing is good, modific is good, check references is good, every thing is good, but there are excesses that so must be considered. And to me, the fact that 'now' i am considered harming wiki when i contribued extensively for months here, with good faith, good will and good resources (at lest in italian) is really absurd. More and more when even english sources are reverted for 'strange' reasons to be fair. Bzuk and more, BillCJ have recently shown manners far away to the 'ideal' wiki. When guys like in OTOMAT discussion page comes and ask for a constructive collaboration, i have nothing against that. When BillCJ comes and start to roll-back and not bother to say why, it's much likely to be considered 'vandalism', but i am SM so he's 'right'.--Stefanomencarelli 11:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, as my 'disruptive campaing', i would remember that, while here monsieurs talks about ban and bantustans, today i have made x-esim hoveraul both in MB-326 and G.91 talk page. This should be matched with other contributor's efforts, but i still have to see one of them. So while i still work for hours on 'my' stuff, struggling to improve them, who complain against my operate is still doing nothing. So, who really tries to 'improve' the situation, just tell me? That's the point. I am seen as 'uncollaborative', but i work to improvements. Some guys call for collaboration and then, do nothing, fielding excuses ('look, one time SM has attacked me, whaaa'). So i still wait a decisive answer: WHERE IS THE GOOD WILL HERE?--Stefanomencarelli 13:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

1-I did not launched complaints before you started to delete some of my edits without 'much care'.

2-Since you have marked my 'increasing wiki.activity' without consider that this month i have made many revision in articles (to improve them as possible), painting as i am attemping to destroy wiki with even an AVG monthly. Your disingenuity is atleast more developed than mine.

3-Moving my posts regardless cronology is a bit misleading. You could re-vert them, to make more comprensible the discussions.--Stefanomencarelli 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These comments are extremely disingenuous as Stefanomencarelli had previously launched complaints to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎, to specific administrators and posted to policy pages on original research and reference questions looking for validation as well as making complaints. All of these efforts were unsuccessful and when this arbitration hearing was launched, Stefano mistakingly believed that a pair of admins were behind his "persecution" rather than two editors (no different from any other editors he encountered that had reservations about his work). Rather than recognizing his error, he turned this tribunal into a stage for further disruptive campaigning. The sandbox suggestion is not new and neither are any of the other well-meaning efforts by editors and admins to help make Stefano's submissions more readable and verifiable. The issue remains not one of content but of proportion, especially in dealing with others. FWIW, the continuing restating of the same arguments is unnecessary and the sequence of the comments is present in the date and time notation with the note. I do not appreciate characterizations made here, criticize the statement not the person. Bzuk 16:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Given that it appears that my efforts are not valued at all, given that there is the exposition to the critics and solutions (included the 'final' solution) wildly proposed by my oppositors, given that my initial request to have attention to excess and abuses made by other users are obviously turned against me, i quit this discussion.

There are many things still to do, and i don't think that lasting here is a good businness. Moreover, all i say is simply used against me, even if i try to use arguments to justifie my position, while the 'others' simply came and plays the role of 'offensed'. Some comments above are showing cleary personal attacks on me and/or my work in wikipedia, called 'harming wikipedia', and my activity is called 'negative' in this project. I do not appreciate this either.

BTW, user EH101 is making his wiki.en activity only to follow and provocke me in all the ways. This is considered normal and so it speaks a volume about some concept of 'normality' here. It worths absolutely nothing that i remark this. But the problem it's just me, right?

Please do not move this comment above, cronology has still a sense. Regards to all.--Stefanomencarelli 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What the beeswax, does all the above mean? Did you not know that your edit history would be scrutinized? FWIW Bzuk 02:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment by others:
 * This proposed remedy is not supported by a finding of fact, and not supported by actually documented evidence. I would encourage Stefanomencarelli to go back and add to the evidence diffs that I came up with, so that actual evidence of improper behavior on the part of the named parties can be examined and considered.  AK Radecki Speaketh 17:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't have any support and the poor wording demonstrates how this RFAR came about. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Stefanomencarelli censured
4) Stefanomencarelli is censured, and strongly admonished not to attack other editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Something needs to be done to protect against future harassment by Stefanomencarelli like this new one --EH101 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * 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: