Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:28, 29 October 2007

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Background comment and suggestions by Bzuk in regards to providing information

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

This isn't a motion or request; this is a proposed remedy, or perhaps principle, and should go below. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This appears to be a reasonable course of action. --Red Sunset 20:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion by Bzuk in regards to working with others

3) I move that Stefanomencarelli create a series of sandbox project pages that are identified and linked on his home page.

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

This isn't a motion or request; this is a proposed remedy, or perhaps principle, and should go below. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Suggestions from Akradecki

5) Here's what I'd humbly suggest to the Committee:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

This isn't a motion or request; this is a proposed remedy, or perhaps principle, and should go below. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Motion by User:Stefanomencarelli

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Proposed set of principles/guidelines by Bzuk

I would recommend that in order to work more effectively with other editors that that the editor in question, Stefanomencarelli:

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

FWIW Re:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Bzuk Bzuk 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Stefanomencarelli is harming the project

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Throughout his edit history, whenever edits have been challenged, Stefanomencarelli has resorted to accusations of censorship although it was clear that only content issues were being addressed. Although he has been active in at least two or three different Wikipedia communities, a very un-wiki like stance was adopted including little concern for consensus decisions, a belief that original research should be accepted, a claim that his resources should be accepted without question and a vociferous defence including being uncivil and laying personal attacks. Re:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Bzuk Bzuk

At first I attributed Stefano Mencarelli's reactions to a lack of facility in English and the inevitable problems experienced by newcomers but gradually I began to notice a pattern of responses which included claims that other editors were not knowledgeable enough in the subject area, an indignant refusal to accept contrary opinions and then resorting to formal complaints to administrators, all of which revealed a much more sophisticated user. See: [1] . The use of the arbitration process appears to be an incremental device used to exact retribution as well as an affirmation of his editing style/use of references.

After sifting out content issues which were regurgitated and should be deliberated on relevant discussion pages, the remaining arguments Stefano has presented are merely rebuttals of the multiple instances of lack of cooperation, incivility and personal attacks, the primary concerns many editors/admins have identified. Although language issues are still the core of the problem, an underlying lack of decorum is evident throughout correspondence, edit summaries and discussions and is even now deployed in the arguments he has forwarded. Although "olive branches" have been extended on a number of occasions [2], Stefano has after initial begrudging efforts resorted back to a combative, vituperative manner still in evidence in these deliberations. Re:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Bzuk Bzuk

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

Comment by others:

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

Stefanomencarelli's use of sources

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

The content issues can be determined through dialogue in relevant discussion pages, demeaning comments directed at other editors and accusations of bias are not as easily resolved and continue unabated even in this forum. FWIW Bzuk 11:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by others:

Added by AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanomencarelli reacts uncivily when his contributions are further edited

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Extensive commentary was provided in all instances including a "primer" on editing [3] that was essentially ignored as commonplace errors in spellling, grammar and syntax continue to be made, revealing a lack of interest or care in the actual editing process. The edit war in the F-14 Tomcat article including a very telling comment by another editor, Chuck Sirloin [4] "This isn't a conspiracy to silence your contributions or the Iranian contingent. The fact is that the section you added was completely unsourced (no references) and to be honest, poorly written. I understand that English is probably a second language for you, but, while I appreciate your contribution attempts, it is not other editors jobs to fix the things you write just because you feel it should be in the article. Most of the things that you added are already covered in the article. --Chuck Sirloin 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)." FWIW Bzuk 12:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by others:

This is the third in what I consider the three core facts/issues in this case, with the other two being enumerated above. Sadly, this incivil behavior has resulted in numerous Project editors, who would otherwise be willing bend over backwards to help a struggling newbie, to not want to have anything to do with him. After spending several hours at different times trying to clean up the grammar of different sections, only to have him whine and bite my hand for doing it, I am reluctant to do so further. I have proposed, below, a resolution that will entail other project editors to continue to be involved in working with Stefano. I am willing, although quite reluctantly, to do so myself, and it will be up to Stefano to demonstrate dignified, civil behavior in order to encourage folks to return to helping him. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Stefanomencarelli banned

1) Stefanomencarelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Banishment seems to be the only workable solution to this point, as Stefanomencarelli has made it clear that he will not accept a solution that does not allow him to edit articles directly. (It means that i don't accept that the 'solution' will been just a wiki-ghetto while the abuses of the gentlemens above mentioned will pass as 'wikipedia defends', basically a lie. - BillCJ 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still ask for your apologies.--Stefanomencarelli 10:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I had not asked for nor seek this form of censure, I will not oppose it. FWIW Bzuk 12:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, per the Stefanomencarelli is harming the project finding. John254 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supported as for Bzuk's reported personal attacks - John's report how Stefanomencarelli is serially uncivil - my PAs report since filing Arbitration --EH101 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanomencarelli restricted

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If Stefanomencarelli accepts this soluiton (he has rejected it to this point), then it is accepctable to me. However, I question whether he could bear with this "apartheid" in the long term, and that he might also make life as difficult for those who try to assist him as he has those in the aritlcle mainspace, and request that one or more of the arbitrators be able to make adjustments to the solution should it prove unworkable. - BillCJ 23:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Bzuk and Bill must answer to their abuses

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not move this comment above, cronology has still a sense. Regards to all.--Stefanomencarelli 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 404: / Line 404: @@
 Given that it appears that my efforts are not valued at all, given that there is the exposition to the critics and solutions (included the 'final' solution) wildly proposed by my oppositors, given that my initial request to have attention to excess and abuses made by other users are obviously turned against me, i quit this discussion.
-There are many things still to do, and i don't think that lasting here is a good businness. Moreover, all i say is simply used against me, even if i try to use Some comments above are showing cleary personal attacks on me and/or my work in wikipedia, called 'harming wikipedia', and my activity is called 'negative' in this project. I do not appreciate this either.
+There are many things still to do, and i don't think that lasting here is a good businness. Moreover, all i say is simply used against me, even if i try to use arguments to justifie my position, while the 'others' simply came and plays the role of 'offensed'. Some comments above are showing cleary personal attacks on me and/or my work in wikipedia, called 'harming wikipedia', and my activity is called 'negative' in this project. I do not appreciate this either.
-BTW, user EH101 is making his wiki.en activity only to follow and provocke me in all the ways. '''This is considered normal''' and so it speaks a volume about some concept of 'normality' here. It worth nothing that i remark this. But the problem it's just me, right? Please do not move this comment above, cronology has a sense. Regards to all.--[[User:Stefanomencarelli|Stefanomencarelli]] 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
+BTW, user EH101 is making his wiki.en activity only to follow and provocke me in all the ways. '''This is considered normal''' and so it speaks a volume about some concept of 'normality' here. It worths absolutely nothing that i remark this. But the problem it's just me, right?
+Please do not move this comment above, cronology has still a sense. Regards to all.--[[User:Stefanomencarelli|Stefanomencarelli]] 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by others:'''

Revision as of 23:28, 29 October 2007

Motions and requests by the parties

Background comment and suggestions by Bzuk in regards to providing information

Motion by Bzuk in regards to working with others

Suggestions from Akradecki

Motion by User:Stefanomencarelli

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Proposed set of principles/guidelines by Bzuk

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed findings of fact

Stefanomencarelli is harming the project

Stefanomencarelli's use of sources

Stefanomencarelli reacts uncivily when his contributions are further edited

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed remedies

Stefanomencarelli banned

Stefanomencarelli restricted

Bzuk and Bill must answer to their abuses

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Proposed enforcement

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Analysis of evidence

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

Template

General discussion