Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:49, 21 September 2007

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

Ratify indefinite ban of Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Issue referred to Arbitration. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From AN/I. After an extensive block log and two very recent, lengthy blocks for edit warring and gaming the 3RR system, User:Giovanni33 has been blocked indefintely by User:Durova. His previous block on 15 August 2007 was reduced by User:El_C.

Endorse indefinite ban. --DHeyward 05:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think dispute resolutions have worked in the case of Giovanni33 or would work now. Would be nice if he would change his ways, but after this many blocks and disruption, I doubt it. I have to support the indef block. --Aude (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse indefinite ban. Like I said at the ANI discussion, this is disappointing because Giovanni33 has a fantastic work ethic, but his block log and contributions show that he cannot refrain from edit warring and gaming the system to avoid 3RR. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:ANI. Reopening it here (and with a leading request at that) is not helpful. Durova herself (!) is trying to work out a less radical solution. --Stephan Schulz 05:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The community may ban Giovanni33 regardless of Durova's wishes. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure it may. That does not mean that it should rush to it, especially not as long as there is a productive ongoing discussion about this topic.--Stephan Schulz 05:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this guy has caused more than enough trouble. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not endorse and am suspicious at attempts to reduce this to a vote. AGF and all but as is said above - this is unhelpful and anyone calling for the perm ban of an editor when the "straw that broke the camels back" was him reporting a known pov pusher for 3rr needs to examine their decision criteria. Sophia 06:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be confused. It doesn't matter what the "straw the broke the camel's back" is. What matters is Giovanni's lengthy block log and the disruptive nature of his contributions to the encyclopedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the quality feel the width - great judgment criteria. I suppose it's easier than bothering with the background details. The perm ban of an established editor is a serious matter that should not be decided just by the length of the block log - most of which is over a year old. Sophia 06:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, we should just ignore his block log. Good call. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole area of options between "ban" and "ignore". I am not advocating "ignore" but still fail to see why this particular incident has attracted so much attention. Check out WP:RfC and WP:RfAr and you will see there are many ways to skin a cat. Of course you can always shoot the poor thing and be done with it. Sophia 08:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not jsut one incident. It's the fourth edit warring incident in 2 months involving 4 differnt article and 4 different editors. All involved gaming the system. 3 of which ended in blocks and one of which ended in his 2RR pledge in July. His last block of two weeks was reduced by El_C for all the reasons that are being stated for why he should not receive an indefinite ban. Indeed, El_C is threatening to unilaterally reduce his block again. IT's clear that G33 has not taken his admonishments or his pledges to heart. --DHeyward 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm will not get you the community ban you seek, Pablo. In fact, it increasingly appears to be a form of intimidation. Please try to be a bit more collegial, if not friendly, to your follow editors. Thanks. El_C 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object to sanctions here while ANI discussion is ongoing. Let the dust settle and see what happens with Durova's offer. R. Baley 06:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Length of block log is as much dependent on how quick admins are to block someone as to their actual actions. There are many users with just as extensive a history of edit warring and POV pushing as Giovanni33... several of them actively campaigning for this ban. That their block logs are not, in some cases, as lengthy as Giovanni33's demonstrates to me why such a criteria is a poor choice. Much (though not all) of the impetus for this ban is an effort by one set of edit warriors to banish their opponent. That isn't something we should ever encourage, and if it succeeds it should be applied equally to long term edit warriors of all stripes with similar histories... whether they have the block log to show for it or not. --CBD 07:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse indefinite ban for Giovanni33, or alternatively a 3 month block followed by a 1-year probation period allowing for 1RR only. Breaking 1RR during probation shall result in an automatic indef-ban. If this alternate suggestion is taken, force the resumption of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2‎, which may be escalated into WP:RfArb if the mediation fails again. Those requesting for "parity" here should rather join the aforementioned mediation/arbitration on Mao/Jung Chang to pursue their content disputes. No sanctions are necessary for other editors at this point.--Endroit 14:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was inclined to support a short-term ban from the whole project, to be followed by a permanent topic ban on all Asia-related articles. But after seeing the evidence of stalking, I have to reluctantly endorse an indefinite ban. Blueboy 96 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking?????? No one is actually taking that one seriously as it's absurd and an accusation put out by the editor who Gio was in conflict with. Sophia 14:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, providing the diff's at ANI. I don't believe I ever was in a conflict with Giovanni33. Do you have any proof of it, Sophia?--Endroit 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It takes two to edit-war; it seems unfair to indef-ban one side in a war (particularly when it's the opposing side in this case that actually violated 3RR). This seems to be another case of a double standard being imposed by the ruling clique. *Dan T.* 14:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Duplicating an ongoing discussion at ANI here is a bad idea, and this discussion was only started after it become obvious that there was not consensus for an indefinite ban at ANI. On his talk page, after being prompted by Durova, Giovanni (following others before him) has proposed alternate remedies of 1RR probation or a topic ban on Mao related articles (with both remedies to be in effect for himself and the editor he edit warred with). Let's pursue those options for now and keep the discussion in the place which it began. I'd rather not even comment here and lend credence to this thread, but I don't want a few editors who have been in content disputes with Giovanni in the past to do an end-around on the dialogue that is already happening.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The behavior of other users should also be looked into, but that doesn't excuse Giovanni33. A fairly lengthy ban (at least 6 months) would be my second choice, though still acceptable. Chaz ^Beckett 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Other solutions should be tried before an end-all-be-all indefinite block. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with many here, a contributing editor should not be blocked, especially after showing such an ability to improve in bahavior. If an admin finds themself loosing patience, perhaps they should step back, patience is required to deal with situations. Their proposal, Giovanni33 that is, seems to be the best implementation to avoiding further edit warring over the issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33's offer

Reposted from user talk:

:Thanks for your offer and being amicable. For the good of the project, I propose a 1RR limit for myself and John Smiths as fair. I self imposed a 2 RR for myself, and only went to 3 when I saw what he was pushing. I'll happily go to 1 revert as a limit for a proposed lenght of time as is agreed per consensus (1 year, 6 months?), with the condition that the same applies to the other editor in these edit wars with me, who has been reverting in excess of what I have been doing over several articles (more than myself). Since this ANI is considering both of us (or should be, per the 3RR report), its apropos that both are dealt with in a similar manner with a solution that benefits the project. It would also dispel appearances of being one-side, unfair, etc.Giovanni33 03:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a 2nd solution that I think would be better for WP: a topic ban on Mao related articles--but again for both parties. The edit wars all center around the Jung Chang book and Mao's China, and I'd be happy to accept a topic ban on these articles provided John Smiths included, as well. This would be my first choice, and I think a better solution as it would end the edit wars period, instead of slowing them down (I can see John Smith doing 1 revert a day, and this would not a real solution).Giovanni33 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these suggestions include reciprocal sanctions on another editor. I would really need to see evidence in support of such a thing before backing that idea, but I have an alternative proposal: this type of remedy fits within the scope of community enforceable mediation where two editors can come together and agree to binding remedies upon themselves. If John Smith is agreeable, I propose a limited unblock of Giovanni33 for the exclusive purpose of community enforceable mediation, which would last until CEM concludes or for one month: if no agreement is forthcoming by that deadline I'd refer to arbitration (shifting the limited unblock to arbitration). This comes with no automatic limitation on John Smith's editing privileges, although I or any other administrator may take action as appropriate. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it would be best for all concerned if the two can reach a settlement between themselves. If this fails, actions with respect to Giovanni33 and John Smith should each be considered on their individual merits. Raymond Arritt 17:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Option One proposed by Gio seems more favourable to me. As someone who have seen the work of both editors, I know that they have valuable contributions. Only they need to be more willing to give-and-take when they disagree. But I have a question for this Option One - would it be a 1RR/article/week? And is it limited to those articles they have edit warred over? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of community enforceable mediation floated by Durova sounds excellent to me, and is probably largely in line with the spirit of Giovanni's suggestions which seem to revolve around both parties agreeing to some wrongdoing, agreeing to dial down the level of conflict, and submitting to restrictions on their editing activities. Has User:John Smith's been contacted about this proposal? I think he is blocked now but it seems like it would be useful to bring him into the discussion via his talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's and I have traded e-mails and had an online chat. He's preparing a proposal. I'll post here when it's ready. Durova^Charge! 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was his pledge 6 weeks ago on a 3RR/edit warring transgression that went unblocked. A few weeks later, he was blocked again for edit warring with a different editor on a different article. That block was reduced by El_C. This weeks edit war was with yet a different editor, a different blocking admin and a different article. If the 2RR pledge didn't mean anything and his blocks keep getting reduced, why is their a belief that anything other that a long period of quiet reflection will produce a change in behaviour? --DHeyward 22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This appears to be an effort by Giovanni33 to shirk responsibility by blaming it all on one user. However, Mongo and others were involved the last time, not John Smith's. I believe the admins from the other recent incidents need to be consulted to determine the appropriate action here. At least a 3-month block on Giovanni33 is in order, for his general disruptions, in addition to the WP:CEM suggested above by Durova.--Endroit 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's offer

This is longer so I'll link to it. Reactions and comments are welcome, and Giovanni33 may respond by talk page posts, e-mail, or chat. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a rant, devoid of any introspection (in it, John Smith doesn't acknowledge his pov pushing of Changism for years). The proposal, if I could parse it, involves himself having some sort of revert advantage, that he promises not to use to his advantage. As a sign of good faith, he asks that his version in the dispute be retained. Feel free to stop me at any time. El_C 22:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do stop. I'm seeking an effective community solution here to avoid arbitration, which is where things will go if we can't achieve consensus. If there's something constructive to build upon please focus on that, or if there's nothing of value then please say so without placing additional strain on the discussion. Durova^Charge! 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unwilling, or unable, to reach parity, which thus far seems to be the case, perhaps arbitration would be the best recourse. El_C 23:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly am willing and able to reach parity if I see a good case that parity is appropriate. You're welcome to make such a case. Please offer evidence in a dry just-the-facts-ma'am presentation. Durova^Charge! 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just am not sure you are capable of being evenhanded, seeing that your first action will need to be justified in the result. El_C 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any evidence of my impartiality, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel where I was the sole defender of an editor whose ideology I abhorred. I simply don't accept the paradigm that it takes two to tango: I've seen enough editors where there was a primary antagonist, and it's a very commonplace tactic for a primary antagonist to invoke it takes two to tango in a bid for retributive action when sanctions appeared to be imminent. So I examine each instance separately and so far I'm not impressed by the direction that this conversation has taken: rather than a presentation of evidence for analysis and judgement this approaches challenges to my capacity for analysis and judgement. WP:AGF should weigh here. Please, if you have evidence to present for community discussion then do present it. Durova^Charge! 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your impressions, I object to you deciding the content end of an edit war that's been going on for years via clumsy action that obviously lacks consensus and is only supported by seemingly well-defined circles. El_C 03:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting: I think Giovanni sees the world too politically and categorises people as being "with him", "against him" or "not involved". He also has trouble accepting that others may have a valid point and trying to find compromise that maybe he doesn't agree with but is a "halfway house" that can move things on. So whilst he was blocked, I would suggest we get a mediator (maybe 2-3) to chat things over with him every so often to see how he was feeling. I think he could do with a sort of "behavioural mentor", someone (or some people) to try to get him to be more flexible and less prone to just want to get what he initially thinks is right. If for some reason they thought he hadn't changed they could recommend he stay blocked, but generally they would be there to help him out.

After the X weeks/months were up, Giovanni would be allowed back. He would be put on 1-revert parole (either per article per week or week) for 6 months/1 year. If he started breaking the terms he would be indef blocked. Also if he was referred again by wikipedians for repeated disruptive behaviour even after the parole was up he might be indef blocked, though that would depend on how people felt at the time.

As for myself, I would re-assure Giovanni I wouldn't game his parole by agreeing not to get involved in articles he has edited and/or still edits which I have not edited. He would draw up a list of articles he is interested in that he thinks apply and we could agree them with someone like Durova. If I started reverting his changes on those articles we had agreed on, I would get a 72-hour ban.

In regards to the points we had been mediating, I would agree not to use my revert "advantage" to change them. In return he would agree to med-arb with three administrators who have not been involved in blocking/unblocking us, editing in our favours/against us, etc. I would suggest Durova (again as a very non-partisan admin) be chair admin, and if we couldn't agree on the other two she would find them herself. As a sign of good faith I would ask that Giovanni not try to change the recent edits I proposed to the lead of the Mao: The Unknown Story article - if he was not happy with them after he returned from his block he could ask they be included in the med-arb.

Some wikipedians sympathetic to Giovanni may think this proposal unfair, but I would point out that if we can't agree to a resolution the matter will go to arbitration, which will be long-winded and probably eventually ban Giovanni or otherwise censor him more severely. There is no reason why we can't get to the position where Giovanni never edit-wars again, but I think a bit of "tough love" is is required here to do that. John Smith's 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First you link to it, now you're "reposting it"? ^[1] Is this some sort of rhetorical device? It looks like it serves to drown the discussion. El_C 23:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be candid, your comment looked like an attempt at poisoning the well. I'm not attempting any sort of rhetoric: I have no dog in this race. I'd just rather achieve a workable consensus if it's possible to do that without referring the matter to WP:RFAR. Durova^Charge! 23:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still talking about parity. I find tou are not being responsive about this limited point. El_C 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view of parity is that we consider each case equally dispassionately on its own merits. Giovanni33's case should be considered on its merits, including present behavior in light of prior context. John Smith's case should be considered on its merits, including present behavior in light of prior context. The "if you block one of mine, then we have to block one of theirs" approach uncomfortably resembles tit-for-tat rather than true parity. Raymond Arritt 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block-log and political-derived prejudice appears headed to skew any notions of fair review, leading to such distortion. El_C 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My worry is that many seem to not be reading the block log correctly, citing each line as a seperate block, and ignoring the time many of those took place and the long stretch between them. They should also take note of who the last blocking admin was back in 2006, and who seems to be advocating the block now. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni's remedies seem to be first more fair, limiting one user and not the other, is just telling one its ok to war and the other its not. What prevents the one not limited from continuing to drown the other out? I am more in favor of the first then the second, however if the belief is the topic and their views, then 2 should be studied. I agree with others, John seems to just be ranting, not actually making a solid proposal. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a worry that John Smith is getting off lightly while Giovanni33 bears the brunt of the punishment. Since this is a CSN notice about Giovanni33, this would be appropriate. JS has a much less impressive block log. I have not seen him reported on ANI or CSN previously as Giovanni33 has. He has not violated other rules such as gaming the system and sockpuppet policies as Giovanni33. In fact, he received one the harshest 3RR penalties from El_C given his block log and he chose to block JS but not Giovanni for edit warring on April 4 (yes they were both involved, it was the same article). It's clear that El_C has a conflict with JS and feels some affinity for Giovanni33 as he has inly blocked JS and only unblocked Giovanni33. Bringing JS into Giovanni33's CSN is more of a red herring. This is about Giovanni33's inability to act civillly within the bounds of consensus and the community adopted policies such as 3RR, Sockpuppetry and Gaming the System and his inability to live up to his previous commitments and promises. --DHeyward 02:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really should try not to accuse admins of anything unless you are going to stand by them and report it properly. Slinging mud is not appropriate. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I accused anybody of anything here except Giovanni33 who should be blocked indefinitely. I know of no policy that El_C has broken so there is nothing to report. It certainly would be wildly inappropriate for him to use his admin tools to change the blocks of either Giovanni33 or John Smith as he has a history with both of them. --DHeyward 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request opened

This thread can close now. It appears unlikely to generate consensus so I've taken it to arbitration and given limited unblocks for both John Smith's and Giovanni33 for the purpose of participation there. Other editors may wish to revise and expand the lists of involved parties and dispute resolution attempts. Durova^Charge! 03:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposing Community Ban on User:Gold heart

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The community consensus here is clearly to have Gold heart banned. It is highly unlikely that any administrator would be willing to unblock him, as the behavior demonstrated by the user is beyond unacceptable. As such, Gold heart can be considered banned. Acalamari 21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing a community ban for User:Gold heart, per suggestion of Fred Bauder in "The Troubles" ArbCom case. He was a somewhat good user, who suddenly decided to retire from Wikipedia and scrambled his password, but when The Troubles Arbcom case started. he activated an up till then dormant account, User:Thepiper and attempted to contribute to that case (without letting folks know that he was Gold heart). He also created another account, User:Gold Heart (Temp), which violates WP:SOCK and ArbCom Rules. This started a downward spiral which continues to the present time.

Recently, this user has created several sockpuppets to harass User:Alison, both on and off-Wikipedia. This harassment included outing of personal, medical data about Alison on Wikipedia, and the use of anonymous remailers to harass her off-Wikipedia. You can see his on-Wikipedia harassment from the contributions of sockpuppets Pronterra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Perolla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Alison has taken the incredibly brave step of stepping forward to show her harrasser for what he is at User_talk:Alison#Public_statement. Now it's time for the rest of us to step forward. I call for a community ban on User:Gold heart and all accounts that they may possess. SirFozzie 23:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In order to consider a community ban, we will need diffs to the different allegations that you are making against User:Gold heart. Without seeing links to the actual evidence to these charges (and not a general link, but specific diffs), I personally will not support any ban.--Alabamaboy 23:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronterra [2] Perella [3], [4], and trying to explain why he's doing this, using another sock account today, [5] SirFozzie 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse witch burning. His trolling using multiple sockpuppets during the ArbCom was a very unwelcome distraction to begin with, and now his sinister behaviour and harassment are becoming totally unacceptable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see evidence that these accounts are the same editor. If so, then I'd support. Has there been a checkuser? Durova^Charge! 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has confirmed that they were User:Gold heart [6]. When I brought this up with ArbCom member Fred Bauder privately off-wiki (due to the sensitive nature of the issue, he confirmed that they were the same account but it would be hard to block the range, because the IP changes). Fred Bauder then directed me over here in the ArbCom case , and suggested an indefinite community ban would be in order [7] here. SirFozzie 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, I endorse it. Sockpuppetry to confound an arbitration case is a very serious matter, and the accusations against another editor are nontrivial. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I see no reason not to. Abusing multiple accounts, trolling in an ArbCom case, the positive checkuser request, and the on and off-wiki harassment to an editor in good standing provide no alternative. Arky ^¡Hablar! 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse community ban absolutely. I found that comment posted to RfARB (link 42 posted above by Fozzie) declaring his love genuinely disturbing. The sooner this gets chopped off at the knees, the better. There is no reason whatsoever for us to allow a user to use Wikipedia to harass and stalk one of our editors. I have reblocked Gold Heart (Temp), Gold heart, Perolla with email disabled (partly to disable email and partly to put the blocks in a third party's name rather than his victim's name). This will have no affect on his ability to email Alison, but at least will prevent him from abusing the email function to harass anyone else. Sarah 04:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban. What this user has done is unforgivable. Sam Blacketer 13:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible support The conduct demonstrated is unacceptable in any civilized online community. Would advise contacting his ISP as well, in light of the serious off-wiki abuse. Blueboy96 14:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alison is probably the only person who the ISP would listen to as a complainant in this case, but if they need any help, I'd support any efforts made by wikipedia to supply them with relevant information. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban. Wholly unacceptable behaviour. Worth checking other wikis too. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse community ban, per Sarah. Second chances are for people who do a bit of edit warring or POV pushing, or get a bit disruptive. They are NOT for people who start real life harassment of our contributors. ElinorD (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban. I'm not familiar with the background to this dispute, but the comments by the user (and his sockpuppets) about Alison's medical history certainly do seem unacceptable. Lots of Wikipedians have medical, personal or emotional issues of various kinds in their lives; publicising details like that about someone else in an attempt to discredit them is not acceptable. As such, I endorse the proposed ban, based solely on the comments made towards Alison; I'm not factoring in the behaviour on the arbitration case, since I don't know the issues involved. Walton^One 14:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse ban. Blatant sockpuppetry, and now harassment of an editor including breach of privacy: there's no wiggle room here. Away with him, and I sincerely hope that he takes time to seek whatever help he needs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unquestionably endorse ban. This user's behavior has been absolutely despicable. --krimpet⟲ 17:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban now that links to the evidence were provided. This behavior should not be tolerated.--Alabamaboy 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban - completely unacceptable behavior. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 18:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban - For all the reasons stated above. Serious abuse on numerous fronts. - Crockspot 18:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I move to close--is there any objection? I see it snowing outside ... granted, it's been open a day, but I can't see why anyone would ever unblock this guy. Blueboy 96 19:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban, and second motion to close, per WP:SNOW and the unacceptable behaviour of the subject. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ban and motion to close. I was the target of Gold Heart's socks at WP:RfAr. Those were ridiculous enough to be little more than a distraction. However, after his account was publically revealed to be a sock, he emailed with with an apology and explained that his actions at ArbCom were more to do with his issues with Alison than myself. That he will go so far to create socks to attack me just because I happened to support Alison's actions is both scary and indicative of the lengths this editor will go. Lets put an end to this now. Rockpocket 19:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Let it Snow!

Pile-on support I know this is closed, but I just wanted to register my support of Alison. She's a great admin and crap like this won't be allowed. Of course it's snowing. . .as well it should be. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. R. Baley 07:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to ban User:Space Cadet from German-Polish-related topics

Space Cadet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive for about five years now in this field. Notified, he seemed willing to change ([8] [9]). Some days on, however, a single-purpose account appeared in a WP:POINT campaign, to whom Space Cadet could not help but express his approval and vowed to help himself after his break ([10]). Now he has notified me that his break was over and violated the Gdansk-vote twice again ([11] [12]). I suggest he has long exhausted the community's patience regarding German-Polish-related areas. Sciurinæ 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a more accurate description of the problem is: for five years, Space Cadet has held a completely different POV from Sciurinæ. The last time I checked, we don't ban people for that. I don't see any revert warring or incivility in Cadet's recent edits you linked above, so there is no serious disruption to consider.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly presenting a straw man argument, because you claim that the reason for banning him would be my different POV when in fact I want him banned from Polish-German related topics given his obvious, recurring and never-ending violations of the Gdansk/Vote. You also seem to present an ad hominem argument, because you play down my presentation by pointing out my different POV. I did not even cite revert warring in the two edits (though actually it is [13] [14] on a slow level), nor did I cite incivility, though incivility, too, is an issue (eg against interfering admins for blocking User:Molobo [15] or this more recently one in which an admin just tried to mediate in some Gdansk-related struggle [16]). It's about a topical ban and not a block for incivility. Sciurinæ 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ban. I see no evidence of recent disruption in the cited links. In the first of the two "incivility" diffs provided ([17]), it looked like the phrase "what an idiot" was referring self-deprecatingly to himself, not to another user. In the second instance ([18]) I agree that he was being uncivil towards Anthony.bradbury (a respected admin), but the incivility wasn't severe enough to merit a block or ban, IMO. Although I understand that this WP:LAME content dispute has been going on a very long time, I don't see any reason to ban this user. I may change my mind if any evidence of actual recent disruption is provided. Walton^One 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space cadet has never been blocked. This is not a place to continue disputes. Take it elsewhere. Banno 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Space Cadet has been blocked six times. The most recent was in April 2006.[19] I'd like to see a compelling argument that this is not an extension of a POV dispute. Durova^Charge! 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe banning Spacer is out of question. I must say that it has been a while since I've seen a useful edit from him (if ever). Most of edits that I have seen was adding a Polish name to an article and nothing else often without a good reason. He occasionally revert warred too but never even close to the amount of grief brought to this project by Piotrus' most important protegé Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after the latter's last return from a one year block alone. Also, Spacer is good natured, friendly and sometimes admits to past mistakes and even apologizes for them. I would like to see doing some useful activity but not doing anything useful on the project is by itself not a reason for a ban. --Irpen 01:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a second reading to understand the irony. :-) Sciurinæ 03:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Durova: The Gdansk vote was the climax of a long-runing POV dispute, to finish it after all was said time and time again. It was intended as a community decision and most voted for its enforcement (including Piotrus), meaning its persistent violation was to be considered an act of vandalism. There was enforcement long ago, most decisively in the cases of Halibut (WP:POINT campaign) and of Molobo ([20] [21] [22] [23] [24]). Even so, that was discouraging due to wheel warring by Piotrus ([25] [26] respectively), so that now after the last attempt of enforcement (wheel warring over Molobo), as far as I'm aware, enforcement through blocking other than 3RR has completely died out. Although Piotrus had certainly been inexperienced as an admin then and you can't bear him any grudge for that now, it is unbelievable that he has managed to make this here look like a content or POV dispute (and "we don't ban people for that" -- Piotrus) rather than someone actively resisting a community's decision. This creeping and never-ending campaign of Space Cadet's five-year-long disruption finally has to be tackled and if that's not the way, then what is? Revert warring against "vandalism"? Or another pointless arbitration case featuring Piotrus? Of all choices, this one seemed to me to be the most rational. Please reconsider it. Sciurinæ 03:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Irpen: if you can't recall seeing a useful edit from this person and perhaps never have seen one, then why oppose banning? Each editor's contributions (or lack thereof) stand on their own merits. Congenial people who aren't building an encyclopedia can easily find a niche at MySpace or some other site. Durova^Charge! 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I am simply a humanist. I don't like harsh measures without a very strong reason. Besides, banning editors for not being useful while tolerating editors who clearly bring more harm than good to the project just does not make much sense. Nationalist extremist POV-pushers roam freely wasting our potentially productive time on dealing with their edits or endless "discussions" about nonsense at the talk pages and in order to get banned they have to make a mistake of also attacking users in especially horrific ways. Or violate 3RR repeatedly (10 times or so and 3RR reports are not even handled these days). Others spend entire days chatting on IRC, hardly make content edits at all (some none at all) but join every possible policy debate with comments that are completely detached from real Wikipedia needs (because someone who does not edit cannot understand the encyclopedia's concerns.) We do not ban those, do we? Sad but true. And here is just a guy who occasionally needs to be reverted. Big deal! If we are serious about improving the project through community sanctions, it is only sensible to start with much more grievously users. --Irpen 07:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means raise those serious cases in separate proposals. At AFD there's a term for that argument, and although I don't mean it disparagingly toward the individual as opposed to the behavior, that class of argument is known as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I wish I had a more polite term for it in this context, but it carries no more weight here than it does there. Durova^Charge! 07:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I am not only a great humanist but also a sober realist :) Do you really believe any of the editors like I named above are bannable through this board? I mean some names popped at the top of your head when I gave some typical descriptions, right? Yes, you guessed right. And that one too.

Now, do you believe those users we thought of are bannable through this board? Realistically? And the reasons why it is impossible have nothing to do with their not being harmful enough. So, why waste time? I mean, if you insist that my pessimism is unwarranted I can try and initiated a couple of threads but both of us know that this is futile. So, why start from Spacer? This is simply unfair. When he adds Kijow or Krolewiec once in a while, I would revert him and not see him for another 3 months. But some of his talk page remarks are truly funny and none of them are offensive. --Irpen 08:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The activity of the Piotrus-Space Cadet edit-warring tandem was discussed as part of a recent ArbCom case. One of the key disruptors during the infamous Gdanzig dispute several years ago, Space Cadet has evolved into a "little helper" of Piotrus in his never-ending POV disputes with Lithuanians and Germans, whose occasional revert may prove inesteemable for Molobo and whose fraudulent edit summaries are still mildly amusing. His activity is not nearly as disruptive as that of his comrades-in-arms, so I think that a suspension of his editing rights may be premature at this juncture. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom found no wrongdoings on my part, but Ghirlandajo still goes around various boards and discussion pages repeating accusations discarded by ArbCom. I'd appreciate if the community would put an end to smearing my name by Ghirlandajo.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who doesn't share the opinion that neutrality can miraculously emerge from opposing sides pushing their respective POV, I strongly support the motion to take "official" steps against Space Cadet's Poland-related activities. Look at it this way: Diverting Space Cadet's attention to other topics for some time might actually help him demonstrate to the community that he is not a nationalist one-trick troll, but intends and is able to make useful objective contributions to Wikipedia. Personally, I don't suppose he would succeed, but he deserves the benefit of the doubt as much as anyone. --Thorsten1 15:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is being asked is that we set up an agreement according to which, if Space Cadet edits certain pages, he will be blocked. So here are the important questions:

Are there any administrators willing to implement such a block?
If such a block were implemented, are there administrators who would disagree, and unblock?

If no admin is willing to implement the block - I certainly would not on the basis of the info presented here - then we can close this discussion. Banno 22:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban of Space Cadet as his long time record speaks for itself - and against him. Recently, Olessi made some suggestions regarding categorization of Germans/German-speakers at German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I've responded [27] that the introduction of new categories trying to describe regions is useless as they will get removed from articles anyway by certain users, giving seven recent diffs of Space Cadet removing the Category:German natives of East Prussia (No East Prussia before 1772) from persons like Frederick I of Prussia who were born in Königsberg (important Królewiec [28] according to Space Cadet). Apart from biographies, he also "restores POV" to the articles on places [29] like Frauenburg, which is called Frombork only since 1945, but not during the Copernican era [30]. Denying centuries of German history by pushing Polish POV over it is Space Cadet's only agenda. As long as he is around, development of the German-Polish-related topics on Wikipedia will stagnate as his behaviour is driving away good faith editors. After five years, it should be him who is made to go elsewhere, e.g. to the Wiki articles covering central oder modern Poland. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 00:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can support it all you like. Unless an admin is willing to impliment it, it's dead in the water. Banno 00:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess "Community sanction noticeboard" means that if the Community agrees on a sanction, and it is violated, and evidence is presented, then one of the admins will enforce it. "Load sharing" seems to work in other admins business, too. Do you really expect that first an admin has to be identified before the pros and cons of a sanction may be discussed? BTW: no violation of the community sanction, no admin needed. It can be that simple. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have a look at the policy. The "community topic ban" idea is fraught. It is not obvious that you have a consensus here, I doubt that any admin would block on the evidence presented. Hence my question - is there an admin willing to block on this evidence? (I hope not, since the evidence presented is years old). If so, then this can proceed. If not, then let's close this discussion. Banno 02:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the community agrees on a remedy then I am willing to enforce it. So far I'm neutral on the merits of the proposal. Furthermore, any editor can report evidence of a topic ban violation to WP:ANI and get action. The question isn't dearth of administrators willing to act; the question is whether consensus exists for action. I am categorically disregarding attempts to establish linkage between this discussion and other editors. We all know the Eastern European topics are a mess, but no heap ever got sorted by wailing about what a mess it is. One chooses a particular part of the problem and solves it, then moves on to the next part. Durova^Charge! 02:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ban. There are many POVed editors in Poland-German area. But after the great Danzig/Gdansk vote, the area is relatively peaceful. As I explained above, to ban one semi-active editor from one side of the dispute would be petty and hardly constructive. I am not surprised to find that POV-pushers from one side would like to see the others banned - but this is not how this project works; we are supposed to reach consensus by discussions and meet mid-way, not try to ban the other side. Lastly: it would be nice if somebody could actually show that Cadet has violated the Gdansk Vote - citing the relevant part of the vote and relevant diff.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, now you are getting ridiculous. Is the "Poland-German area" and the Gdansk vote again [31] [32] extended to the West bank of the Rhine? Next stop, French-Polish border? -- Matthead ^discuß! O 04:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ekhm, Matthead, why do you give us diffs from non-Space Cadet editor and from 2005, too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL, although this underscores my longstanding opinion that community sanction consensus should be established by uninvolved editors rather than by partisans to a dispute. BTW what's Polish for Koblenz? Durova^Charge! 05:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point: so far all critics of Space Cadet are the users who have disagreed with him in the content dispute. Considering Cadet's inactivity in past months, that doesn't seem fair.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across with Space Cadet contributions back in 2006 in regards of his possible sock puppetry case involving User:Tirid Tirid [33]. That draw my additional attention was his provocative edit summaries [34][35] as further events shows such practice is carried on till recent [36] . I made impression that attempts to discuss issues with this contributor is hard as he tries to derail them with flaming or irrelevancies [37] . However at that time I did not regard his contributions as extremely disruptive, but Sciurinæ presentation of overall picture of his offensives made me evaluate his behavior more strictly. Regular attempts to go against consensus can be seen as disruptive and neglect towards WP:POINT, which disregard I criticize in other cases too, is especially frustrating. However I do knot know if a ban is a solution here, in other hand I would voice support for additional supervision of Cadet’s future conducts by neutral administrator. M.K. 13:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ban. Space Cadet is relentless in long term dealing with historical revisionism and equivocation, thus providing a much needed balance to other POV warriors who hold views opposing to his. Interestingly enough, Space Cadet gets occasional support from the German editors as well, not only from the Polish ones. Please take a look at this series of quick reverts. Matthead,[38] Space Cadet,[39] Matthead, [40] and finally, Rex Germanus,[41]. --Poeticbent talk 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As my name just popped up, I thought I'd join the discussion. First of all, despite what's implied above, I'm not a German editor, though I understand that my user:name might act as a false friend. Talking about 'false friends', I would like to warn everyone (especially the admins and persons unfamiliar with him) do not trust the person behind the 'EU' pic. (" O ") I can assure all of you (and a simple look at his contributions will say more than what I'm about to write) that the thing on this persons mind is not the EU, but to infect wikipedia with Pro-German and Anti-Polish nationalistic POV. So naturally he's against a Polish user like Spacecadet, and will try to do everything to get him banned (as proven by his numerous reactions above). I'll say this. Yes, Spacecadet is pro-polish, and yes, a little less Polish POV wouldn't hurt, but given that persons, like Matthead, are currently active on Poland-related articles ... we need all the spacecadets in this world just to compensate.Rex 16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed bann.Rex 16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" or "POINT counter-POINT / troll counter-troll" arithmetics is unhelpful, and of course very unwikilike. --dab (𒁳) 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, and your 'the enemy of my friend is my enemy' is somehow morally superior? Please. It's fine with me that you don't like me Dbachman, absolutely fine, but keep it to yourself, and don't support 'users' like matthead to prove the proven.Rex 17:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot conceive of any way to read my above comment as ad hominem, or supportive of Matthead. --dab (𒁳) 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess I'm not as limited as you are.Rex 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceCadet's pov is irrelevant, the question is, does he make an arguable effort to establish compromise. I see nothing blatant enough to warrant a topic ban. These slow Crossen/Krosno type toponym-wars are annoying, but they occur spontaneously from driveby IPs anyway, SpaceCadet doesn't need his account for that. If we can show that a significant portion of SpaceCadet's efforts on Wikipedia go into such toponym-wars, we should impose a toponym revert ban, or 1RR parole, not a topic-ban. Such a specialized ban could help him contentrating on adding content or building consensus instead of obsessing over placenames. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ban the offense is way too minor for such a heavy action. German vs other language names (not only Polish, e.g. I know that the Dutch and Italians also have these issues with German editors) is a highly politicised issue. I am afraid nothing but banning all German and all Polish editors and IP's from these articles will help. Many good editors seem to get carried away, and I don't see SpaceDadet being other than the others. Hence no reason to ban him (alone) for this. Arnoutf 17:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wissen Sie, daß diese Lösung nicht genug ist? Durova^Charge! 04:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like to notify 'Durova' that this is the Anglophone wikipedia. Say it in a way understandable to all or refrain from saying it. Show some respect.Rex 16:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended. Arnoutf's post appeared humorous and I responded in kind. He had suggested a topic ban for all German and Polish editors, so I (an American) answered in German that his solution might not be sufficient. Durova^Charge! 04:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I proposed this, I thought that this board had the main or only focus on long-term disruption rather than a recent and more urgent problem, and that bans can be appealed at the Arbitration Committee if a promising change of direction becomes obvious. Therefore I picked this board because I believed that this naming disruption was destined for eternity. I still believe in this eternity (yesterday, as ever [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]), though I agree with Banno that this here is going nowhere and apologize for the time this has all cost you. If there will be no end in sight and especially should it erupt in a more extreme way, I should like to take this to the Arbitration Committee, where also Dbachmann's suggestion could be considered and which should do justice to the concerns of it being a content dispute and Space Cadet in relative terms. I think it can be closed now. Sciurinæ 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I supposed to say something now? Well, I'm glad it's over, that's for sure. I wrote a beautiful response, just didn't enclose it early enough before the whole thing ended. I guess I'll save it for later, just in case. I will definitely try to learn from this experience. Happy editing, everyone! Space Cadet 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close discussion. There is clearly no consensus for banning this editor. I don't think CSN is the correct forum for this dispute. Walton^One 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. Durova^Charge! 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia closed

The above arbitration case has closed. Maurice27 (talk · contribs) is banned for 30 days, and the parties to the underlying content disputes are encouraged to continue with the normal consensus-building process to produce high-quality articles. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing Community Ban on User:Ferrylodge

Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Perhaps some of you recall Ferrylodge, who has been waging a low-level edit war via attrition on Abortion and related pages since December 2006. His technique has been successful enough to drive at least one contributor (one of our better and more productive ones) from the project altogether. He has now turned his attention to harassing, attacking, and maligning me - using the same just-under-the-radar techniques - while continuing his tendentious editing. I have been ignoring this, but it has reached a point where I am now asking for community involvement.

His approach is that of a 'victim bully,' using claims of having been wronged to attempt to gain leverage over others. He has twisted my attempt to support consensus into me being an "edit warrior", my attempts to enforce policy and guidelines into "harassment" and so on. Examples, all taken from today: In the "edit war", he was blocked by MastCell for 3RR on Stillbirth, for insertion of the word "womb". My count (and I may have missed some) is six editors supporting "uterus" over "womb" as a more accurate and appropriate term, and one or two "no preference" editors, and one, Ferrylodge, edit warring to use the word "womb" - the debate has been spread over multiple articles. This is indeed a content dispute, I am well aware of that. I am not here for suggestions or help on the content dispute. I am here because Ferrylodge is maintaining his position that he alone is correct, that he alone is NPOV, that editors who disagree with him are disruptive edit warring POV pushers. No one supports his preferred phrasing and since his block, no one has reverted to his version or inserted the word. He added a POV tag to Abortion because his edit did not have consensus nor even support. This is dishearteningly similar to Sam Spade - in specific, that he "wages POV war designed to wear down opposition, even where he is in a minority of one, by sheer unreasonable persistence in the face of consensus", and he maligns those opposing him to make it appear that it is a personal matter on their part, rather than a policy matter on his. He even "strongly recommended" (on Talk:Pregnancy) that an opposing editor on the Stillbirth article be blocked for disruption, because of course it could not be a simple case of Ferrylodge editing against consensus - it must be that the other editor is disruptive!

He consistently cherry-picks my words to twist them into false meaning - for example, when I referred to a word as "vulgar" and to clarify I posted the definition link to the meaning of vulgar I was using (commonly used language), he removed it with the edit summary " Please do not post at my talk page, KC." - then proceeded to post on his talk page that "she said that I was trying to insert a "vulgar" word into the article. It astounds me that an admin can get away with such incivility, and I find it very difficult to respond in a constructive way to her personal attacks" - which is typical of his tactics, for I must either ignore his misrepresentation of my statement, or ignore his request to not post on his talk page - which surely he learned in his block for harassment would be harassment, as that is precisely what he was last blocked for. In short, he's using the "lessons learned" not to be a better Wikipedian, but to game the system so that he is "innocent" and I am "doing wrong." I am not the only editor he uses these tactics against, if similar evidence for these actions against other users is desired I can dig though his history and place them here.

I doubt that an Rfc would be of any help, because in the few previous instances I have seen of community input, Ferrylodge showed himself resistant to the concept that he could possibly have erred at all. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive252#Harassment Charge By Bishonen Against Ferrylodge, followed by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2, followed by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive259#Disruptive editing at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment by Ferrylodge - all of which stemmed from one 24-hour block, and all but the last were Ferrylodge stridently defending himself and accusing all and sundry. The last was a suggestion that he'd become disruptive enough on the Rfc talk page (post-closing) to be blocked. I argued against blocking for disruption, because the minute that was posted, he ceased the disruption. My mistake. I note a similar pattern of behavior every time attention is focused on Ferrylodge - he fades quietly into the background for a brief spell, then returns renewed to the attack. This has gone on long enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, blocked once for harrassment already and still at it. Doesn't seem amendable to any view other than his own or willing to let matters drop, and too willing to carry a grudge. I doubt other forms of WP:DR will yield other outcomes. A ban seems warranted, and I'd support one. Odd nature 23:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per all the evidence presented by KillerChihuahua, and the fact that he has been warned dozens of times to stop harassing KC, and he still continues with no attempt to be civil. Need I note that he was recently featured in the Washington Post for edit warring on the Fred Thompson article? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also would support a ban on Ferrylodge, or at minimum a topic ban of all pregnancy-related articles and all politics related articles. Incidentally, the article that Swatjester refers to can be found here. JoshuaZ 00:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never once posting to here, I'm not sure what is the protocol. However, per KC's comments and my own personal observations including this response, he needs to go. Moreover, this offensive RfC just begs for removal of this person from the project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I am the contributor who has stopped editing Wikipedia due to having to deal with Ferrylodge's tendentious editing. I first encountered him in December 2006, when he came to Abortion,[49], which ended up leading to his first block for 3RR. I was accused of "request[ing] that [he] be blocked,"[50] although I'd only reminded him to watch out for 3RR in an edit summary,[51] and the blocking admin confirmed that he had acted indepedently.[52] I tried to put this behind, and to focus on content, not the contributor, during the many disagreements that arose between Ferrylodge, myself, and other editors on abortion and pregnancy-related articles in the following months. It was difficult, though, because I sometimes got the impression that Ferrylodge was trying to make things personal, such as when he apparently went out of his way to insert himself into a minor dispute which arose between myself and an anonymous editor on Vaccine controversy, although the dispute did not involve Ferrylodge, and Ferrylodge had never edited the article in question.[53] I am surprised to find that he is still making disruptive edits on the same constellation of articles — Abortion, Pregnancy, Stillbirth — after almost nine months.[54] I think this is a very long time to learn the ropes on Wikipedia; Ferrylodge has had ample time to learn how to work cooperatively with other editors. When I felt that my personal frustation was beginning to compromise my ability to contribute to this community, I left, but Ferrylodge continues to edit despite the chip on his shoulder, and refuses to let bygones be bygones with regard to users like KillerChihuahua. I don't think it's fair to editors who have dedicated themselves to building this encyclopedia to have to sort out Ferrylodge's disruptive editing and confrontational behavior any longer than they already have. -Severa 01:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support motion. I just thought I would clarify in case this was unclear from the statement above. -Severa 02:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have unblocked Ferrylodge so that he can participate and respond here. I had blocked him earlier today for violating 3RR; he requested an unblock to respond here, and I felt that was only fair. MastCell ^Talk 03:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but only for commenting here. Any other editing or disruption and it's right back to blocksville. FeloniousMonk 03:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support a block. He's a chronic troublemaker, unlikely to change. FeloniousMonk 03:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also supporting. KillerChihuahua makes a strong case. As a second choice, would support a topic ban on reproduction and political articles. Durova^Charge! 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ban - while Ferrylodge is clearly an obstinate editor, I don't believe the evidence presented by KillerChihuahua is enough to warrant a ban. Nor do I see evidence of "harassment".

One inadvertent breach of 3RR in a year hardly constitutes grounds for a permaban, and I see little evidence of KC's assertion that Ferrylodge routinely defies consensus. For example, recent discussion at Talk:Abortion indicates that Ferrylodge has as much support for his views as opposition.

Ferrylodge seems prepared to discuss his concerns at length on talk pages, and I think if he were to make a commitment to agree to abide by consensus, that ought to be sufficient at this stage. If not, then I think this is a problem that would be best handled by an RFC, I don't see that it's severe enough at present to warrant intervention here. Gatoclass 07:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to KillerChihuahua's Proposed Community Ban

I have been editing at Wikipedia since April of 2004. As KillerChihuahua knows, I was blocked today for the third time, so I have been blocked on average once per year. The current block was for 3RR when I reverted KillerChihuahua, and I have already apologized repeatedly for it at my talk page. As MastCell put it, I "did show contrition for violating 3RR." If anyone wants to read the details at my talk page, here's the link. Mastcell also noted that, "There's been incivility on both sides."

KillerChihuahua has taken this opportunity to build a case for banning me. I disagree with her, and would like to explain why.

KillerChihuahua has been uncivil to me today. At the abortion article today, she asserted that my words are "bullshit". At the pregnancy article today, she suggested that I am "naive and disingenuous." More recently, at the stillbirth article, she said that I am a "spammer". Actually, the "spam" to which she referred was a list of definitions of the word "womb" from reliable sources, and I had not previously listed those definitions (or any of them) anywhere else, prior to listing them in the stillbirth article. More examples of incivility abound. Here, KC said that my words are "inane." Here she said that my behaviour served no purpose, "unless your purpose is to convince others that you are congenitally dense."

Let's look at KC's allegations. She says that I have been waging a low-level edit war via attrition on abortion and related pages since December 2006, fading in and out like some kind of guerilla. It is true that I have edited those pages, among many many others, as can be seen from my contribution history. I have 271 articles on my watchlist, and I do not enjoy the hassles of continuously editing the abortion-related articles, so I revisit them now and then.

I will pass over KC's generalized allegations (which I deny) and go to her specific examples. She starts with the example of the stillbirth article, which involved the 3RR for which I have apologized today (involving my third block in as many years). KC says: "My count (and I may have missed some) is six editors supporting 'uterus' over 'womb' as a more accurate and appropriate term, and one or two 'no preference' editors, and one, Ferrylodge, edit warring to use the word 'womb' - the debate has been spread over multiple articles....Ferrylodge is maintaining his position that he alone is correct, that he alone is NPOV, that editors who disagree with him are disruptive edit warring POV pushers. No one supports his preferred phrasing and since his block, no one has reverted to his version or inserted the word."

But look at the actual discussion at stillbirth that KC emphasizes. Prior to KC's appearance at that article, a grand total of one single editor (ConfuciusOrnis) sought to completely remove the word "womb" from that stillbirth article. I wrote a talk page response to that one single editor, in which I pointed out that I was not seeking to introduce the word "womb" into the article, seeing as how that word had been in the article long before I ever touched that stillbirth article.[55]. Moreover, I explained that I was not advocating removing the word "uterus" from the article, but rather believed the article should contain both words, which are synonymous.

If there had been more than just one other editor trying to change the stillbirth article to completely delete the word "womb", then I would have acquiesced, with objections. But there was only one. KillerChihuahua then came to the stillbirth article today, and reverted in favor of ConfuciusOrnius here. I now quote her edit summary verbatim: "Ferrylodge I have no idea why you are so in love with the word 'womb' but please stop this silly campaign to use an inaccurate and non-specific vulgar term. Write a poem or something. 'Ode to the womb.'" I am not in love with the word "womb". Rather, I objected to the recent effort (of the last two days) to completely delete this word "womb" from all of Wikipedia's abortion-related and pregnancy-related articles. I have never suggested that either the word "uterus" or the word "womb" should be completely removed, but have instead contended that they are synonymous words so that neither should be eliminated from Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia guidelines say: "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible."

In addition to KillerChihuahua's rude edit summary (accusing me of a silly campaign and telling me to go write a poem), Killerchihuahua also commented very briefly at the talk page, accusing me of spamming the stillbirth talk page. Please look at what she erroneously called "spam": a detailed list of reliable sources stating that those two words ("womb" and "uterus") are synonymous --- at that time (14:13 on 20 September) I had not shown that list anywhere else but at the stillbirth talk page (I would later copy the list at 14:45 in the pregnancy discussion because people were similarly attempting to completely delete the longstanding word "womb" from that pregnancy article as well). Instead of replying civilly at the stillbirth discussion page, KillerChihuahua blithely called the list of references in the stillbirth talk page "spam", and reverted my edit without addressing that list of references whatsoever (beyond her insults in the edit summary and her accusation of spam at the talk page).

Killerchihuahua suggests that no one has agreed with me that the word "womb" can sometimes be used in addition to the word "uterus" in these types of articles. She is incorrect. Hoplon has agreed with me today. Also, Agne has also agreed with me that "'womb' is undoubtedly the more common term. Both Wikipedia policies and common sense implores us to look at the context of each usage and decide which one is one appropriate." I understand the need to acquiesce when outnumbered. I've done it a million times at Wikipedia (more than I would like). And I am prepared to do it here as well, though I detest the effort to completely delete the word "womb" from numerous Wikipedia articles where it has coexisted with the word "uterus" for years, without any fuss at all.

KillerChihuahua's next example is the POV tag that I added to the abortion article. In my entire three years at Wikipedia, I have never before added a POV tag once until this week. I do it twice this week and that's grounds for banishment? Killerchihuahua is incorrect when she says that I had no support at the abortion article; you can go to the discussion page and see the support. For example, LCP wrote today that his "main argument is that the lack of any image of what is aborted or any mention of how what is aborted is disposed of harms the credibility of this article."[56] When the POV tag was removed for a second time, I did not edit-war about its removal. And I stand by my contention that the abortion article is slanted; it contains virtually no description of what is aborted, and KC has insisted yet again this week that the article not even contain a single image of what is aborted.

KC also criticizes me because I "strongly recommended" (on Talk:Pregnancy) that an opposing editor on the Stillbirth article be blocked for disruption; she sarcastically writes: "of course it could not be a simple case of Ferrylodge editing against consensus." As I already pointed out, at that time there was only one single editor (ConfuciusOrnis) at the stillbirth article who wanted the word "womb" to be completely deleted from that article though it had been that article for years. ConfuciusOrnis was edit-warring about it, as the article's edit history shows. If one editor supports a change in the article, and another editor opposes the change, how does that create a "consensus" for changing the article? KC is flat wrong about that.

KC also asserts that I should be banned because I asked her today to not post on my talk page. I have previously been accused of harassing KC at her talk page, and I have not gone anywhere near here talk page since that accusation. Am I under an obligation to allow her to post at my talk page? Is it grounds for banishment for an editor to politely ask another editor to post elsewhere than at the first editor's talk page? KC also complains that I cherry-pick her statements. I quoted her above several times, and I provided a link every time. Is it cherry-picking to mention that she characterizes my words as "bullshit". If KC does not want such insults to be cherry-picked, then she should not utter them in the first place.

KC also asserts that "Ferrylodge showed himself resistant to the concept that he could possibly have erred at all." That is obviously false, and she knows it. Earlier today, I repeatedly apologized for my 3RR error. Likewsie, yesterday, I specifically apologized to KC for another error here. When I make mistakes, I try to own up to them.

Lastly, KC complains about an RfC that I initiated against Bishonen. That was the only RfC that I have ever initiated against anyone during my entire three years at Wikipedia, although I did once join an RfC launched by someone else. KC is now seeking to dredge up that incident, and to get the last word. I feel compelled to briefly respond yet again. In my view, the harassment charge against me several months ago was inappropriate. Killerchihuahua never asked me to leave her talk page.[57] Bishonen asked me to leave KC's talk page, but Killerchihuahua did not. I did leave KC's talk page after denying the harassment charge, and I was blocked for denying the charge. How many other people at Wikipedia are blocked for harassing someone who never asked to be left alone? When I subsequently brought an RfC against Bishonen, Bishonen rounded up her friends, who proceeded to abuse the RfC, for example byposting images of food and the like. Neither I, nor the editor who joined me in the RfC, agreed with the outcome,[58] but I dropped the matter rather than going through a time-consuming and disruptive arbitration.

So, those are my responses to KC's initial post here. I may or may not have further comments, depending upon whether time permits, although I will be travelling on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (September 21-23) and therefore will not have internet access.

I would like to very briefly respond now to Swatjester, who mentions a recent article in the Washington Post, which mentioned me. No objective person could read that article and conclude that I was edit-warring, anymore than they conclude that the other mentioned editor (Tvoz) was edit-warring. The fact of the matter is that there was a lot of controversy at the Fred Thompson article, and the majority of editors agreed with my position. Why should I be banned from Wikipedia because a majority of editors agreed with me about a particular matter?

I will also briefly respond now to Severa. KillerChihuahua accuses me above of "using claims of having been wronged to attempt to gain leverage over others." Then Severa posts her comment that she "stopped editing Wikipedia due to having to deal with Ferrylodge's tendentious editing." I wonder if KC will criticize Severa for "using claims of having been wronged to attempt to gain leverage over others."

Severa is upset about a comment that I made at a talk page over six months ago, and here is the entire comment: "I have posted a general comment about reverts, and the need to explain them, here." That's it. I have little recollection of it, but if people really believe that such a brief comment six months ago supports banning me, then I will investigate further, and try to reconstruct why Severa could have been so offended by such a brief remark by me. My understanding of "wikistalking" is that it's done to harass, whereas it's perfectly OK to monitor a user if one believes that the user's edits are suspect and need another eye. I hardly think that that one brief sentence over six months ago is even remotely related to wikistalking.

I have no grudge against anyone at Wikipedia, including KillerChihuahua. But that does not mean I should relax and accept being called a "bullshit" artist, or the like, does it? My goal is to calmly develop a neutral and well-referenced incredible encyclopedia. If anyone looks at my contributions in toto, I believe you will find that they have helped reach that goal, including my edits to abortion-related articles. Among other things, I brought the Roe v. Wade article through a featured article review, and have done much else to improve Wikipedia, and I am proud of it.Ferrylodge 05:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratify indefinite ban of Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Issue referred to Arbitration. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From AN/I. After an extensive block log and two very recent, lengthy blocks for edit warring and gaming the 3RR system, User:Giovanni33 has been blocked indefintely by User:Durova. His previous block on 15 August 2007 was reduced by User:El_C.

Endorse indefinite ban. --DHeyward 05:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think dispute resolutions have worked in the case of Giovanni33 or would work now. Would be nice if he would change his ways, but after this many blocks and disruption, I doubt it. I have to support the indef block. --Aude (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse indefinite ban. Like I said at the ANI discussion, this is disappointing because Giovanni33 has a fantastic work ethic, but his block log and contributions show that he cannot refrain from edit warring and gaming the system to avoid 3RR. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:ANI. Reopening it here (and with a leading request at that) is not helpful. Durova herself (!) is trying to work out a less radical solution. --Stephan Schulz 05:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The community may ban Giovanni33 regardless of Durova's wishes. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure it may. That does not mean that it should rush to it, especially not as long as there is a productive ongoing discussion about this topic.--Stephan Schulz 05:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this guy has caused more than enough trouble. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not endorse and am suspicious at attempts to reduce this to a vote. AGF and all but as is said above - this is unhelpful and anyone calling for the perm ban of an editor when the "straw that broke the camels back" was him reporting a known pov pusher for 3rr needs to examine their decision criteria. Sophia 06:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be confused. It doesn't matter what the "straw the broke the camel's back" is. What matters is Giovanni's lengthy block log and the disruptive nature of his contributions to the encyclopedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the quality feel the width - great judgment criteria. I suppose it's easier than bothering with the background details. The perm ban of an established editor is a serious matter that should not be decided just by the length of the block log - most of which is over a year old. Sophia 06:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, we should just ignore his block log. Good call. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole area of options between "ban" and "ignore". I am not advocating "ignore" but still fail to see why this particular incident has attracted so much attention. Check out WP:RfC and WP:RfAr and you will see there are many ways to skin a cat. Of course you can always shoot the poor thing and be done with it. Sophia 08:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not jsut one incident. It's the fourth edit warring incident in 2 months involving 4 differnt article and 4 different editors. All involved gaming the system. 3 of which ended in blocks and one of which ended in his 2RR pledge in July. His last block of two weeks was reduced by El_C for all the reasons that are being stated for why he should not receive an indefinite ban. Indeed, El_C is threatening to unilaterally reduce his block again. IT's clear that G33 has not taken his admonishments or his pledges to heart. --DHeyward 14:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm will not get you the community ban you seek, Pablo. In fact, it increasingly appears to be a form of intimidation. Please try to be a bit more collegial, if not friendly, to your follow editors. Thanks. El_C 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object to sanctions here while ANI discussion is ongoing. Let the dust settle and see what happens with Durova's offer. R. Baley 06:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Length of block log is as much dependent on how quick admins are to block someone as to their actual actions. There are many users with just as extensive a history of edit warring and POV pushing as Giovanni33... several of them actively campaigning for this ban. That their block logs are not, in some cases, as lengthy as Giovanni33's demonstrates to me why such a criteria is a poor choice. Much (though not all) of the impetus for this ban is an effort by one set of edit warriors to banish their opponent. That isn't something we should ever encourage, and if it succeeds it should be applied equally to long term edit warriors of all stripes with similar histories... whether they have the block log to show for it or not. --CBD 07:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse indefinite ban for Giovanni33, or alternatively a 3 month block followed by a 1-year probation period allowing for 1RR only. Breaking 1RR during probation shall result in an automatic indef-ban. If this alternate suggestion is taken, force the resumption of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mao: The Unknown Story 2‎, which may be escalated into WP:RfArb if the mediation fails again. Those requesting for "parity" here should rather join the aforementioned mediation/arbitration on Mao/Jung Chang to pursue their content disputes. No sanctions are necessary for other editors at this point.--Endroit 14:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was inclined to support a short-term ban from the whole project, to be followed by a permanent topic ban on all Asia-related articles. But after seeing the evidence of stalking, I have to reluctantly endorse an indefinite ban. Blueboy 96 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking?????? No one is actually taking that one seriously as it's absurd and an accusation put out by the editor who Gio was in conflict with. Sophia 14:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, providing the diff's at ANI. I don't believe I ever was in a conflict with Giovanni33. Do you have any proof of it, Sophia?--Endroit 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It takes two to edit-war; it seems unfair to indef-ban one side in a war (particularly when it's the opposing side in this case that actually violated 3RR). This seems to be another case of a double standard being imposed by the ruling clique. *Dan T.* 14:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Duplicating an ongoing discussion at ANI here is a bad idea, and this discussion was only started after it become obvious that there was not consensus for an indefinite ban at ANI. On his talk page, after being prompted by Durova, Giovanni (following others before him) has proposed alternate remedies of 1RR probation or a topic ban on Mao related articles (with both remedies to be in effect for himself and the editor he edit warred with). Let's pursue those options for now and keep the discussion in the place which it began. I'd rather not even comment here and lend credence to this thread, but I don't want a few editors who have been in content disputes with Giovanni in the past to do an end-around on the dialogue that is already happening.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The behavior of other users should also be looked into, but that doesn't excuse Giovanni33. A fairly lengthy ban (at least 6 months) would be my second choice, though still acceptable. Chaz ^Beckett 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Other solutions should be tried before an end-all-be-all indefinite block. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with many here, a contributing editor should not be blocked, especially after showing such an ability to improve in bahavior. If an admin finds themself loosing patience, perhaps they should step back, patience is required to deal with situations. Their proposal, Giovanni33 that is, seems to be the best implementation to avoiding further edit warring over the issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33's offer

Reposted from user talk:

:Thanks for your offer and being amicable. For the good of the project, I propose a 1RR limit for myself and John Smiths as fair. I self imposed a 2 RR for myself, and only went to 3 when I saw what he was pushing. I'll happily go to 1 revert as a limit for a proposed lenght of time as is agreed per consensus (1 year, 6 months?), with the condition that the same applies to the other editor in these edit wars with me, who has been reverting in excess of what I have been doing over several articles (more than myself). Since this ANI is considering both of us (or should be, per the 3RR report), its apropos that both are dealt with in a similar manner with a solution that benefits the project. It would also dispel appearances of being one-side, unfair, etc.Giovanni33 03:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a 2nd solution that I think would be better for WP: a topic ban on Mao related articles--but again for both parties. The edit wars all center around the Jung Chang book and Mao's China, and I'd be happy to accept a topic ban on these articles provided John Smiths included, as well. This would be my first choice, and I think a better solution as it would end the edit wars period, instead of slowing them down (I can see John Smith doing 1 revert a day, and this would not a real solution).Giovanni33 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these suggestions include reciprocal sanctions on another editor. I would really need to see evidence in support of such a thing before backing that idea, but I have an alternative proposal: this type of remedy fits within the scope of community enforceable mediation where two editors can come together and agree to binding remedies upon themselves. If John Smith is agreeable, I propose a limited unblock of Giovanni33 for the exclusive purpose of community enforceable mediation, which would last until CEM concludes or for one month: if no agreement is forthcoming by that deadline I'd refer to arbitration (shifting the limited unblock to arbitration). This comes with no automatic limitation on John Smith's editing privileges, although I or any other administrator may take action as appropriate. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it would be best for all concerned if the two can reach a settlement between themselves. If this fails, actions with respect to Giovanni33 and John Smith should each be considered on their individual merits. Raymond Arritt 17:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Option One proposed by Gio seems more favourable to me. As someone who have seen the work of both editors, I know that they have valuable contributions. Only they need to be more willing to give-and-take when they disagree. But I have a question for this Option One - would it be a 1RR/article/week? And is it limited to those articles they have edit warred over? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of community enforceable mediation floated by Durova sounds excellent to me, and is probably largely in line with the spirit of Giovanni's suggestions which seem to revolve around both parties agreeing to some wrongdoing, agreeing to dial down the level of conflict, and submitting to restrictions on their editing activities. Has User:John Smith's been contacted about this proposal? I think he is blocked now but it seems like it would be useful to bring him into the discussion via his talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith's and I have traded e-mails and had an online chat. He's preparing a proposal. I'll post here when it's ready. Durova^Charge! 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was his pledge 6 weeks ago on a 3RR/edit warring transgression that went unblocked. A few weeks later, he was blocked again for edit warring with a different editor on a different article. That block was reduced by El_C. This weeks edit war was with yet a different editor, a different blocking admin and a different article. If the 2RR pledge didn't mean anything and his blocks keep getting reduced, why is their a belief that anything other that a long period of quiet reflection will produce a change in behaviour? --DHeyward 22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This appears to be an effort by Giovanni33 to shirk responsibility by blaming it all on one user. However, Mongo and others were involved the last time, not John Smith's. I believe the admins from the other recent incidents need to be consulted to determine the appropriate action here. At least a 3-month block on Giovanni33 is in order, for his general disruptions, in addition to the WP:CEM suggested above by Durova.--Endroit 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]