Revision as of 11:11, 1 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

Motion to contact all involved

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

I agree with Bigtimepeace, here. Bad idea.Giovanni33 21:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Undue weight

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Edit warring harmful

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This was proposed by Giovanni33 at 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Excessive reversions" What is that, exactly? This is far too vague, though of course edit-warring is not good generally. John Smith's 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Protection considered harmful

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This was proposed by Giovanni33 at 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection is often necessary for many different reasons - I don't agree that it is disruptive even if it has to be used more than once on articles. John Smith's 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

This protection log says it all, really. The first instance was over a year ago, and we've proceeded to an arbitration case. Could some indefinite blocking have solved this nine months ago? We'll never know, but I have the feeling the answer is yes. Assumption of good faith is for when we have no reason not to think the user(s) in question will do better job of adhering to policy in the future. If protection and/or short blocks have failed three times or more, I think we can conclude they have no intention of doing so. Picaroon (t) 02:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in this case that it has gone past protection-only. However, arbitration principles are general statements, not specific about the case (specifics go in findings of fact, as I'm sure you know, being more experienced with this process than most). The Arbitration Committee, in my opinion, would do well to discourage blocks where protections are possible and, more important, preferable. If this principle is reworded to emphasise that protection should be used initially but blocks later if the parties continue to revert with or without discussion and without good faith, I will support it fully. Daniel 05:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

I think all the above points are valid. Page blocks can help to get people to cool down, and discuss, so that is why they are used. I'm fine with that. Other times blocks for all edit warring parties are indicated. Which is best is a case by case decision. But, I think we should get more serious about edit warring. A little allowance for that encourages it as an editing practice. Some seem to get away with this regularly, and thus POV push, since others get blocked when they stand up to the pov warrior. This includes tag teaming, and not using the talk page provide sound and valid arguments for the edits. Editors should not be using revert to "vote" back and forth among versions (they should not vote period as that is the lowest form of form over substance (didn't Jimbo once say "voting is evil?"). When editors engage in this edit warring nonsense, all parties should get short blocks, but esp. those that are using it as a disruptive tactic after losing the merits of the argument on the talk page. This is esp. the case when the article gets repeatedly protected as a result. I've noticed that a group of editors get together to basically "attack" an article by starting a revert war and get the article protected in a damaged state, and so on. These editors are being disruptive. My point, above, is just a corollary to the negatives of edit warring because its results in article protection, which is itself a form of disruption. I think this is an opportunity for arbcom to make a strong point about this and perhaps set in some new norms among admins regarding this kind of behavior. I have in mind the kind of things we've seen repeatedly on the Allegations of US terrorism article. In the case of the Mao article, John Smith edit warred and violated 3RR--alone against many other editors. He was reported by instead of an appropriate block, the page got protected. I also don't believe in indef banns, unless its a vandal. All editors can be reformed, even if it means a topic or article ban, after repeated violations within a a relatively short period of time. Lets be tough, consistent but not harsh.Giovanni33 05:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that a group of editors get together to basically "attack" an article by starting a revert war and get the article protected in a damaged state, and so on. Who is this, then? Don't make vague complaints - be specific, or it will appear that you're attempting to smear others through general, unsubstantiated comments. John Smith's 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The group that did this to the Allegations of US terrorism article, right before it was protected a couple months ago. They came back and started it again, and it got protected again (at least this time we had a couple of weeks to make improvement to the article before the attacks came). To your credit you have not been guilty of this. They are far more organized and sophisticated.Giovanni33 15:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it's worth noting this is in relation to disputes separate from ours. John Smith's 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Noted. That is why, even if you don't believe me, I do not think you should be banned. You are only guilty of edit warring, gaming the system, being unreasonable (or just stubborn), gaming the system, some meat/socketpuppetry, sometimes a little uncivil, a little wikistalking, and an occasional POINT violation. Nothing that a 1RR parole and/or a topical restriction, and some stern rebuking won't cure. You have never engaged in any kind of vandalism, even of the sophisticated variety. And, I think you are operating from good faith assumptions, i.e. you really believe what you say and argue for, and are not trying to be disruptive for ends that you know go against WP's core policies. This places you in a category of the reformable editor who, with intervention, can be molded into a productive, net positive, editor. That is my goal.Giovanni33 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, given your own behaviour I doubt very much you can point label me in such a fashion. You have edit warred, gamed the system, been very unreasonable, made point violations, wikistalked and I wouldn't be surprised if you indulged in meat puppetry - I think the priority should be rehabilitating you, rather than you pointing the finger at others to try to distract from your own faults. As for myself, the sock report on me wasn't been supported by the reviewing admin. Now I know as far as you're concerned it's probably guilty until proven innocent, but I really think you should drop the puppet claims - it makes you look like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel in desperation. John Smith's 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection and blocking

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, I think that's better. John Smith's 08:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel 05:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 4.1, wording by FT2 following discussion about how superflously-worded 4) is. Thanks FT2 :) Daniel 11:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; note I don't have a view on the debate itself here, not having read it all. All I've done is some drafting and sharpening of the existing {tl;dr} proposal. FT2 11:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

False AN3 report

1) This Arbcom case was triggered by an indef block on Giovanni33, based on this false AN3 report by Giovanni33 against John Smith's.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Opposed. It missing the mark given that this case was triggered because JohnSmith refused any parity for this edit warring and 3RR vios, which I correctly reported, and for which he was correctly blocked, yet again. The blocking admin warned him that if he refused, it would go to arbcom where he could receive more severe sanctions. Thus, this was the trigger. The AN3 report only triggered a 48 block for each party. The indef block was triggered by a separate report in which the year old socket puppets my opponents always bring up, seeking my head, and an admin taking the bait (against community consensus, causing it to be overturned.) In finding a solution that would make everyone happy, JohnSmith refused, and that is the trigger of this case (of course everything is related).Giovanni33 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Giovanni, it was you (and El_C, maybe unwittingly) that caused this by insisting I agree to the same sanction as placed on you. I said quite happily that I would submit to community review. However, it was not for you to decide for the community what sanction I should receive. I can only guess your reason for refusing to let the community decide was that they would see you were the worse offender and put less stringent controls on me. After all I had no way to stop the community putting me under revert parole as well. John Smith's 19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--Endroit 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (See this ANI case)--Endroit 19:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on Giovanni33's claim: The indef block (based on the false AN3 report) was the root cause which triggered this Arbcom case, although John Smith's refusal may have been a more immediate trigger. They're not mutually exclusive.--Endroit 19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that both parties have engaged in some problematic behavior, it probably isn't necessary to have a finding on exactly which incident triggered the arbitration case being filed and accepted. If the point here is that one of the parties intentionally filed a false report, or that a block on someone's block log should be disregarded because it was made in error, then that finding could be proposed without getting into a sterile debate about exactly why the case is in arbitration. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 and John Smith's have edit warred across multiple articles

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - I would think this is a pretty easy one to see given everything that's been said on this case. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The proposal is too superficial. HongQiGong's name shows up in my evidence, as having sided with Giovanni33 on significantly numerous occasions. There are actually 3 revert-warriors concentrating on the Mao/Jung Chang dispute: Giovanni33, John Smith's, and HongQiGong. HongQiGong is least likely to venture into unrelated topics, while Giovanni33 is the most.--Endroit 23:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it was worded to be simplistic. Giovanni33 and John Smith's have edit warred against each other on multiple articles - true or false? That's it. I'm not opposed to digging deeper into the issue once we can at least acknowlege this very simple fact, and this proposed finding is not biased against either party involved. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree: Giovanni33 has edit warred against John Smith's, DHeyward, A.J.A., MONGO, Ultramarine, and Yaf. Conversely John Smith's has edit warred against Giovanni33 and HongQiGong. I'm sure there are others involved, but the major players are covered in my list.--Endroit 23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Cool. Thanks for acknowledging that John Smith's and Giovanni33 have edit warred against each other. And please - John Smith's has edit warred with more than just me and Giovanni33. Just off the top of my head, during the BC/BCE issue, you can add at least PHG, KillerChihuahua, Black Falcon, etc, to the list. But this section is not for evidence gathering is it? It's a simple fact that the two have edit warred against each other on multiple articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 and John Smith's have both wikistalked each other

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - Evidence is presented in the text of proposed finding. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - This evidence shows that Giovanni33 deliberately stalked John Smith's for the sole purpose of getting John blocked. That is a far greater type of harassment, per WP:STALK. John Smith's stalking don't appear to have the same level of harassment involved. Also, edits shown above by John Smith's appear to be rather ideologically motivated, while Giovanni33's is just gaming, as explained in my evidence.--Endroit 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I can see how John Smith's was ideologically motivated to revert, as evidenced by his... err... empty edit summary, and the ideological explanation such as "Undid revision 122171576 by Giovanni33 (talk)"... On two articles that he's never edited before... Excuse the sarcasm, but seriously, give me a break. And again, I'm not saying Giovanni33 was innocent of wikistalking. I'm saying they both are guilty of it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm surprised you don't read the content being edited, HongQiGong. And this by Giovanni33 is a far more evident type of WP:STALK than your mere 2 examples.--Endroit 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• In your link, you provided evidence of Giovanni's wikistalking - please read my comment again, especially the part where I wrote "I'm not saying Giovanni33 was innocent of wikistalking". Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Also, your evidence does not show proof of wikistalking by John Smith's beyond April. Mine does, for Giovanni33.--Endroit 01:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - Whilst I had not originally edited the two articles mentioned, I did have a genuine interest in the article content, history, philosophy, etc. Whereas Giovanni has never shown any interest in military affairs at all. Also, Hong, if you checked the history you'll see I made a proactive, positive change here. This is what I was trying to do, as I felt the version I had earlier reverted was poorly phrased. Note that Giovanni didn't revert my change there. If I had been wikistalking I would have reverted him again. On the other hand Giovanni reverted 3 times on the Type 45 destroyer page. That shows he was definitely wikistalking. John Smith's 06:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni has had many chances to reform and not changed his behaviour

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Giovanni33 is placed on 1RR for one year

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Like Endroit, I also think Giovanni should receive a ban in addition to subsequent probation. John Smith's 17:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 17:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'd support a ban from 3 months to a year, followed by a one year 1RR probation.--Endroit 17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: I too support something more than parole. This user has had many chances to reform and has not changed ways. A further ban is also called for. Xmas1973 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support, given parity for both sides. I'd also support a topical bann on Mao related articles (for both parties) for 1 year, provided a 6 month good user provision is added.Giovanni33 19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support, best way to resolve this I think, and is appropriate for both editors. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's is placed on 1RR for one year

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed--MONGO 17:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: This Arbcom case was triggered by an indef block on Giovanni33, based on this false AN3 report by Giovanni33 against John Smith's. We are discussing John Smith's here only because Giovanni33 used John Smith's as his defense, and a leverage to reduce his block. Also, based on this comprehensive list of AN3 Reports, Blocks, & Near Blocks in the last year, there is a big inbalance of incidents between the 2 editors. Considering that John Smith's largest prior penalty was a 48 hour block and there were no other warnings against him, a more lenient penalty is in order.--Endroit 18:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. And, Endroit is wrong. This case was triggered because JohnSmith refused any parity for this edit warring and 3RR vios, which I correctly reported, and for which he was correctly blocked, yet again. 1RR parole is obviously indicated at the very least given JohnSmiths vast and extensive edit warring across several articles with many editors, and many 3RR blocks, including this year (much more than me, considering I have no 3RR vio blocks this year, period). I refer to my evidence, including an amazing 37 reverts made on a single day (Aug 6th), and in each article, reverting another 3 times for each the following day.Giovanni33 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: This punishment seems disproportionate. It seems unfortunate that the opponent in this case is such a concerted abuser. It would be unfair to tar John Smith's with Giovanni33's offences brush. Xmas1973 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please propose a finding of fact detailing some instances of this editwarring. Remedies need findings of fact so people looking at the closed case can figure out what the issue with the editor was. Same with the other proposal. Picaroon (t) 18:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically based on each user's block logs and I think these proposals are fair...I would not like to see either editor banned and hope they can instead do all they can to hash out differences on associated talkpages...the 1RR forces them to do this, or face a block. We could add an escalation scheme...first block 24 hours, second, a week...etc.--MONGO 05:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. As I do for Giovanni.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good behavior

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

Proposed by Giovanni33

Not supported. If a year-long restriction is imposed, it should last a year. If the arbitrators want to review someone's behaviour, fair enough. But I don't think people under restrictions themselves should ask to be let off/ask someone else to ask they be let off. John Smith's 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Banned from editing about Mao

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

Proposed by:Giovanni33

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose for myself - completely over-the-top and not necessary. Also disproportionate for me as you have little or no interest in Chinese history. Finally far too vague. John Smith's 21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally it's fairly meaningless for yourself as your interest in this area is more the articles on Jung Chang and her book, rather than Mao or Chinese history more generally. Indeed you're much more interested in editing articles like Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. Given your edit-warring there maybe it would be more appropriate if you were banned from editing content in relation to articles like that. John Smith's 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually JohnSmith mises the point. This is due to POV pushing that violates Undue Weight, not edit warring (what the 1RR parole is for), or what articles one is most "interested in." Irrelevant. I've edited a lot on China related articles, and the conflicts happen when I have to try to correct JohnSmith's violations of content policy. Also, since Jung Chang and her book is all about Mao and China under Mao, its completely inclusive, and stops him from POV pushing her theories all over WP's articles.Giovanni33 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so this is about censoring anything mentioned by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday? Well at least you came out with it, rather than tried to hide behind something. Proves that it isn't about a fair balance between us, but trying to control what I do. You may have edited China-related articles in the past, but generally you've given up on that. Which is why this wouldn't mean anything for you, whilst it would for me.

Also, as Picaroon said, you need to present findings of fact and get them agreed upon before you can make allegations of the sort that I "violate content policy". Otherwise it looks like you're trying to throw mud at the wall in the hope some of it will stick. John Smith's 22:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Parole Violations

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

proposed by: Giovanni33

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: