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

Statement by CBDunkerson
First there was a proposal that Giovanni33 be indefinitely banned on AN/I. After that failed to achieve consensus the same proposal was made on CSN. There was no consensus there either. Now we've got this ArbCom case. Those discussions are worth reviewing for background. In the past year Giovanni33 has been blocked four times for edit warring, once for 3RR twelve months ago and three times for edit warring without breaching 3RR. Due to reversals (in one case by the blocking admin after 10 minutes) and adjustments these four blocks make up ten entries on his block log. In the same time period John Smith's has also been blocked four times, all for 3RR violations - those four blocks, with reversals, accounting for six of the eight entries in his block log. Based on this recent history I would have to say that there seems little reason why Giovanni33 would receive an indefinite block and John Smith's only 48 hours. Giovanni33 does have a more extensive block history prior to the past year, but John Smith's first edit was only a month before that year began (on 08/15/06)... his two other 3RR blocks (6 total) having been given in that first month. Both are certainly guilty of extensive edit warring and should receive blocks of increasing duration for repeated violation of that principle, but I don't see four blocks in a year as 'exhausting patience'... and if it were I can't see how it would be so for one and not the other. All that said, I don't see that an arbitration case is needed given that the community has already reviewed the matter extensively (twice) and found no consensus for action more drastic than blocking or revert parole - which Giovanni33 indicated he would accept, but John Smith's rejects as implying a 'false parity' between their actions. --CBD 18:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace
I think this was taken to ArbCom prematurely and I do not think the committee should take the case. There was an ongoing discussion on the matter which should continue. The best way to go in my opinion is to place Giovanni33 and John Smith's on 1RR parole and/or give them a topic ban so the edit warring stops. This has been suggested by numerous parties and Giovanni has basically agreed to it, while John Smith's has not. I think the evidence is clear that both of these users are consistently edit warring with one another, and I don't think the fact that John Smith's does not consent to being placed on some kind of parole is particularly relevant though it would have been nice. It is also not relevant to argue, as John Smith's does, that he would not have edit warred were it not for Giovanni. The far more basic truth is that he would not have edit warred if he had simply decided not to edit war, and I find his unwillingness to take responsibility for his own behavior (as Giovanni at least has on his talk page) problematic. I'm not sure what the process would be exactly, though I think any admin could do it, but I think the 1RR or topic ban remedies should be imposed on both of these users. We simply don't need an ArbCom case to impose these remedies and to deal with these editors, both of whom make good contributions but need to be moved to separate corners.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify in response to John Smith's reply to my statement above, I do not think he should be placed on some kind of probation without any discussion, as I said I think the discussion should continue. One of the posts on ANI gave me the impression that an admin could unblock both of you with the stipulation that you would be on 1RR parole but I could be wrong about that. Even if an admin could do that I do not think they should do so unilaterally, but only after a number of people had weighed in on the remedies proposed by Giovanni and others and if the general opinion seemed to be that both of you should be placed on some sort of parole. I think this is the kind of thing that ideally could be worked out elsewhere, rather than in a lengthy and time consuming ArbCom case. I do continue to think that admitting some responsibility for your own edit warring would be a good idea.Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved BenB4
I do not understand why the proposals along the lines of those at User talk:Giovanni33 failed, other than that they clearly were not given enough time to succeed. There is a reasonable and good-faith counter-offer at User talk:John Smith%27s, and no reason to believe that the two are not open to further negotiation. It doesn't seem that the administrators involved put a lot of effort into reaching a mutual compromise. Perhaps they thought it has already been too much work, or will be, but there is no way arbitration is going to be less work.

I recommend rejecting the case for now. If the administrators involved can't get something worked out in a week, it will be simple to reinstate this RfA. &larr;Ben B4 02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Endroit
Caution: There are MULTIPLE issues involved here. One is related to the AN3 report filed by Giovanni33 (resulting in a 48hr. block for both), the other is related to Giovanni33's long term behavioral problems (resulting in his perm-ban). And now a 3rd issue has emmerged, which is John Smith's long term behavioral problems.

Unfortunately ANI and CSN lead to no further consensus, because multiple issues were involved which could not be appropriately addressed. WP:CEM was suggested but was rejected, as CEM probably cannot address all the issues either, and so all the issues ended up here.

Here, in more detail, are some of the things which I believe to be the issues for this Arbitration:

Unfortunately, because the admins at ANI have disagreed as to where to go from here, intervention by Arbcom is strongly urged.--Endroit 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Whether the AN3 report filed by Giovanni33 was in good faith or in bad faith, and whether it was a WP:POINT violation by Giovanni33 (Opinion seems to be split on this)
 * Technically, there was NO 3RR VIOLATION. There is no "version being reverted to", so the "1st Revert" on top portion of the report may not even be a revert.  The "4th Revert" on top was self-reverted, so that doesn't count.  And the "3rd Revert" is unrelated to the first 2 reverts.
 * The bottom "4 Reverts" occur over a span of 2 days rather than 24 hours, so isn't really a 3RR violation.
 * Giovanni33 apparently forced the issue at AN3 despite there being no 3RR violation technically.
 * 1) Whether Giovanni33 was wikistalking other editors
 * I mentioned at ANI that Giovanni33 may have been stalking John Smith's in early March, this year. In addition to that incident, a few days later, Giovanni33 wikistalked John Smith's into Type 45 destroyer just to revert-war, causing John Smith's to get blocked for a 3RR violation.  Giovanni33 appears to have been stalking John Smith's ever since.  And now in Giovanni33's controversial AN3 report, HalfShadow said Giovanni33 appeared to be wikistalking John Smith's.
 * 1) Whether the RfM Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2 needs to be resumed, perhaps in the form of WP:CEM as suggested by Durova.
 * 2) Whether Giovanni's self-imposed 2RR, promised during an unrelated incident, is relevant here.  Also, does this automatically imply that Giovanni33 & John Smith's penalties should not be on par with each other?
 * 3) Whether other recent incidents by Giovanni33, involving MONGO and others, should also be reviewed.  The allegations were serious enough then, for them to request an RFCU at Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33 in July (although sockpuppetry was not confirmed).
 * 1) Whether Giovanni's self-imposed 2RR, promised during an unrelated incident, is relevant here.  Also, does this automatically imply that Giovanni33 & John Smith's penalties should not be on par with each other?
 * 2) Whether other recent incidents by Giovanni33, involving MONGO and others, should also be reviewed.  The allegations were serious enough then, for them to request an RFCU at Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33 in July (although sockpuppetry was not confirmed).
 * 1) Whether other recent incidents by Giovanni33, involving MONGO and others, should also be reviewed.  The allegations were serious enough then, for them to request an RFCU at Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33 in July (although sockpuppetry was not confirmed).
 * 1) Whether other recent incidents by Giovanni33, involving MONGO and others, should also be reviewed.  The allegations were serious enough then, for them to request an RFCU at Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33 in July (although sockpuppetry was not confirmed).


 * PS: This may (or may not) be relevant here:  There seems to be a tight-knit collaboration among editors who support a particular political ideology, relating to Marxism and Communism.  Within the umbrella of Marxism/Communism are Marx (in Europe), Mao (in Asia), and Che (the Americas).  My question is, is this "comradery" among editors a friendly one? ... Or is it disruptive?  Evidence of disruptive collaboration may be combined with the ongoing arbitration Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds.--Endroit 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

__________
 * In response to HongQiGong: I'll note your accusations in good faith.  However, John Smith's overall disruptions were largely confined to the dispute which had been covered by an ongoing RfM until this incident occurred.  You can provide the case against John Smith's, and we'll see if they have merit on their own, rather than being part of the ongoing content dispute.  HongQiGong, noting that you have participated in this same content dispute (based on your edit-wars with John Smith's), I suggest that if Giovanni33 remains indef-blocked, you can take over in his place, to resolve the content disputes with John Smith's.  (WP:CEM may be pursued, as suggested by Durova.)--Endroit 13:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 2nd response to HongQiGong: I said "John Smith's overall disruptions were largely confined to the dispute" in reference to the larger picture.  Also, as far as the content disputes go, if nobody is willing to step in and pursue WP:CEM on behalf of any indef-blocked editor, the dispute can end right there.  Perhaps, HongQiGong, you just need to redefine the issues so that a proper WP:CEM can be pursued with John Smith's.--Endroit 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by HongQiGong
I would say I'm pretty familiar with both Giovanni and John Smith's behaviour, and have had conflicts with John Smith's himself. What I can say is - both editors are very stubborn and discussions on content disputes with them rarely lead anywhere except them still insisting on making the edits they want. Granted, this describes a lot of editors, and even myself at times. But it becomes problematic when they start edit warring with each other, especially across multiple articles. John Smith's is not innocent of many of the accusations that have been thrown Gio's way. Wikistalking, edit warring, gaming the system, etc etc. I am neutral as to whether or not equal sanctions should be placed on both editors, but John Smith's has seem to only offer his "assurance" not to game any possible revert parole that may be placed on Giovanni. This is hardly good enough without outlining what, if any, consequences would be incurred if John Smith's chooses to break that "assurance" and does game Gio's revert parole. Another thing is, while a revert parole can be finely-defined, what exactly does John Smith's "assurance" entail? If he only reverts Gio's edits once, is this considered gaming Gio's revert parole or not? Maybe the two editors need equal sanctions, or maybe not. But regardless, if sanctions are spelt out for Gio, let's do the same for John Smith's - exactly how many reverts is he allowed, exactly who is he not allowed to revert against, for how long, etc? These things need to be spelt out or it's basically pointless and open to argument and interpretation for any possible future offenses. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Replies to John Smith's ''Actually I was very clear. I said that if I started reverting any changes he made on a list of previously agreed articles reserved for him then I would receive the ban - so one revert would be enough. Otherwise there would be no point, would there?'' Fair enough. But it would make infinitely more sense if both of you are prevented from reverting each other's changes on any article, not just a "list of previously agreed articles reserved for him". We've already seen how the two of you edit warred across multiple articles. Limiting a revert restriction for you only on a number of articles would essentially allow you to game his revert parole on articles we didn't think of or articles that have not been touched yet. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to this comment - : I didn't suggest a "complete ban". Just a restriction on the both of you from reverting each other's edits on any article, or at least unless you two actually agree with the reversion. If the two of you are dedicated to stop edit warring with each other, I would think that this should be a pretty fair solution. And I know I don't have room to talk because I've edit warred myself, but I've seen plenty of other editors who always discuss before reverting, or they impose 1RR on themselves without any problems. Limiting the solution to only a number of articles is just asking for more edit warring, because you two have a history of edit warring across multiple articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to this comment - : Yeah, I remember those reverts I did. Except I wasn't wikistalking. We were having a dispute on the use of BCE/BC, and those edits were related to that dispute. If you'll remember the discussion you initated at ANI, a number of editors commented and you were the only one that kept insisted that you were being wikistalked. Getting back to you and Giovanni - well, when it comes to edit warring, it takes two to tango. You should know by now that nothing really justifies edit warring. You're saying that you edit warred because Gio was vetoing everything you wanted, and Gio is basically saying that he edit warred because you were POV pushing. I don't think admins really care for either of those reasons. As for possibly placing restrictions on you two, like I said, there's no guarantee that you won't game a possible 1RR restriction on Gio unless we spell out what the consequences are, and unless it applies to reverts you do to his edits on any article. Otherwise you could chase Gio to other articles and revert his changes - and we've seen you do it before - without stated consequence. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to this comment - : Come on John Smith's.  Who's trying to game the system now? I'll link up again the two instances of wikistalking that I found - The War Against the Jews, and Theory of everything. These two articles are topically completely unrelated to the dispute that was ongoing. You made those reverts during your dispute with Gio at Mao: The Unknown Story, and you have never edited those articles before that. But lest editors may misinterpret my comments, my intention is not to say that Gio himself is innocent. I am stating that John Smith's is just as guilty as Giovanni is, and if restrictions are to be placed on Giovanni, than we need to also spell out exactly what restrictions should be placed on John Smith's so that he doesn't game Gio's restrictions, noting that they've shown a tendency to edit war across multiple and unrelated articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking In response to Endroit's uneven accusation of wikistalking on the part of Giovanni: I reviewed the old content dispute at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story. The two editors have edit-warred across multiple articles as early as April of this year. Some of the articles are notedly related to Mao: The Unknown Story. But a couple of the articles (The War Against the Jews and Theory of everything) are definitely not related, and you can see from the article histories that John Smith's first edits on both of these articles are to revert Giovanni's edits, which of course resulted in edit warring between the two. These reverts were done during their content dispute on Mao: The Unknown Story. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Endroit I would hardly call editing articles he's never edited before (and which were not named in the RfM) only to revert Gio's changes "confined to the dispute" they had. Like I said, John Smith's is just as guilty of many of the things that Giovanni has been accused of - wikistalking, edit warring, etc. Yes, I did participate in the content dispute at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story, and that's how I became aware that the two editors dislike of each other. And you can see at the end of this conversation that once I found out the two editors were edit warring across multiple articles, I basically got tired of the dispute and largely left it alone for the two to figure it out amongst themselves. I support Gio's edit in that content dispute, but at that point I began to suspect that they were/have been disputing less so on the strengths of their arguments, but simply because they don't like each other. So no thanks, I won't be "taking over" Gio's place in these inane disputes. And yes, I have edit-warred with John Smith's. In fact, all three of my blocks were the result of edit warring with him. Which only goes to show that John Smith's doesn't just edit war with Giovanni, he edit wars with other editors as well. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Deskana
I originally requested arbitration a while back, but it was rejected in favour of trying mediation. Since then, there have been two mediation cases that have failed (1, 2). Giovanni was blocked indefinitely, and has contested the block. I think now is the time for arbcom to investigate the behaviour of all involved parties, and sort this matter out. --Deskana (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by PalaceGuard008
This comment is strictly related only to User:Endroit's comments about camaraderie among editors with a certain political ideology. I agree wholeheartedly that the issue of political ideology extending into both content distpues and administrative action is one worthy of concern and further examination. For example, User:Endroit repeatedly edit-wars on Senkaku Islands with a clear pro-Japanese, anti-Chinese ideological slant (see history and Talk:Senkaku Islands), along with his comrades in ideology. It is therefore interesting to see User:Endroit rise so eagerly to the defence of User:John Smith's, who, I hope, would not object to being characterised as anti-Communist China (see, for example, the last userbox on User:John Smith's). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Clarification for User:John Smith's: I do not equate Communism with China. In my view, User:Endroit has an anti-China view, and User:John Smith's has an anti-Communist China view. The two are not equivalent but are related. Secondly, I am not trying to cast in a negative light any anti-Communist China sentiment. There are many people who object to Communist regimes, and for good reason too. Thirdly, that I was involved on Senkaku Islands does not disqualify me from commenting - in fact, it probably better qualifies me to comment on the issue. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Xmas1973
I support arbitration in this matter because the activities of Giovanni33 have become far too disruptive to go without comment. He starts edit wars with other users on flimsy pretexts and proves unreasonable when discussing matters under dispute. The evidence for this has been well documented by other users here. As for the other users, I do not see that their conduct in this case is anywhere near as bad as Giovanni's. He has had plenty of last chances, having had an indefinite block removed last year pending his good behaviour, discussions on WP:ANI, etc.. This is the first time the others' actions have formally been discussed, so I think it's a bit ridiculous for him to claim he is not the worst offender. Xmas1973 11:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Folic_Acid
While I've had no interaction with User:Giovanni33 and know nothing of him other than what I've read on the various pages referenced here, I have had some dealing with John Smith's, so for what it's worth, I'd like to offer my own thoughts about his character. While he's obviously one who has strong opinions and sticks to them zealously, I've never known him to be a dishonorable person given to the apparently malicious and underhanded dealings he seems to be accused of here on these pages. It's been my experience that he only seeks accuracy in the various articles to which he contributes, and when presented with reasonable evidence, is willing to reconsider his opinions. I'm sorry (but not surprised) to see a number of John's critics here giving evidence against him and suspecting him of other malfeasance. While he's been suspected of many things like sockpuppetry and "gaming the system" (whatever that means), he really only seems to be guilty of some edit warring, and possibly of wikistalking. While I don't know Giovanni33, his block tells me that he's quite prone to rule-breaking, and thus, of suspect trustworthiness. John Smith's, on the other hand, has proved himself (in my opinion) to be bullheaded but honorable.


 * Comment for Endroit and PalaceGuard008: I, too, would agree that the camaraderie between editors of a particular ideology merits investigation, as I think it's particularly demonstrated here.  For example, while PalaceGuard008 cites the apparent connection between Endroit and John Smith's based on supposed anti-communist and/or pro-japanese leanings, there seems to be a similar link between Giovanni33 and El C, both of seem to have at least a particular affinity for Che Guevara.  I note that link not because I criticise it, but for the sake of thoroughness - we shouldn't castigate one side for their links without also noting links on the other.  Respectfully submitted, -Folic Acid 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Jerry
I have to say that John Smith's is a pretty reasonable editor. Others might find him stubborn because he sometimes reverts vandalism that might not be considered a vandalism, but he does that just because either a source isn't provided or because it is edited by a user that has vandalized in the past.

I think, comparing Giovanni's and John's block logs, that Giovanni looks more like a disruptive editor although I have never gotten into a conflict with him in the past.-- Jerry 20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)