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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Response by Folic_Acid

Regarding "Revisionist History" and content disputes

In response to ElC, while I respect his opinion and that he differs in that opinion from the one John Smith's holds, I strongly disagree with the content dispute over the veracity of the claims of Jung Chang in Mao: The Unknown Story is relevant to the topic at hand. While I'm not an expert on the claims made by the book, it seems obvious that no consensus on the validity of the book's claims exists, even among serious Chinese history scholars. Even the page on the book itself contains both criticism and praise for the book - I don't think anyone can claim that professors holding PhDs from places such as Princeton, the London School of Economics, and the University of California are not qualified to comment on the book and its story. So, while Giovanni33 and ElC are certainly entitled to their opinion, it seems disingenuous for ElC to portray John Smith's as attempting to "inject Changism" into China-related articles, while there exists no consensus on whether "Changism" (if, indeed, such a term or concept even exists) is an improper, untrue, or non-neutral interpretation of history. Again, while I respect ElC and bear him no ill will, this "evidence" which he presents on the main page seems little more than a screed against John Smith's editorial view. I'd respectfully request that in weighing ElC's statement, that it not give much weight to content disputes, to the supposed perception of the PRC government, or to the allegation that this one man is singlehandedly ruining Wikipedia's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folic Acid (talk • contribs)

My evidence is clearly outlined. Folic Acid's own findings (that is as far as the above goes), which he may or may not qualify as obvious (makes no difference, so long as they remain limited to the realm of anecdote), appear to be limited to his own personal interpretation. Which is fine, but claiming I'm disingenuous while at the same breath claiming to respect me, well, that's a whole new experience for me. El_C 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the strange formatting of my comments - I'd actually intended them to be two sections of one post, but... oh well.
Anyway, perhaps I'm missing it, but I fail to see where my comments here differ in their substantiality (new word!) from ElC's. Whereas mine are (hopefully) clearly presented as merely an opinion, ElC's are not (rather, they are presented as substantive evidence). I continue to maintain that both should be relegated to mere opinion - he believes that John Smith's is ruining Wikipedia's reputation, has a "fuck you" attitude towards the PRC government, and thinks that Jung Chang is revisionist. While I make no claims about the last, I do maintain that the former two are clearly unprovable, silly, and irrelevant. Whether or not ElC believes Jung Chang's view of events is also irrelevant - there is a clear lack of consensus on that matter, and thus, his evidence claiming that John Smith's has been making a mockery of the NPOV policy (by posting about Jung Chang's book) should be considered only as his opinion on the merits of Jung Chang's conclusions, and nothing more. As for new experiences... I'm glad to oblige. I do always try to approach any other editor with whom I'm not familiar with both respect and an open mind. I certainly have no personal grudge to bear, and I hope the same things can be said of everyone here. --Folic Acid 18:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is quite bold, and not in the positive WP:BB sense, to, on the one hand, claim there is no scholarly consensus of this and that, and at the same breath, maintain a lack of familiarity about this very alleged consensus. The fact is that John Smith's has been pov-pushing Chang's highly controversial book, as mainstream, for years now. So I see nothing to withdraw or retract. El_C 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless the claims made here are patently false, then I accept them at face value. Hence, they stand in direct opposition to your claims. I don't dispute that the book is controversial. --Folic Acid 18:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never accept at facevalue what you read on Wikipedia. I made the link into an internal one for you (for future reference). El_C 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the formatting help - I'm not quite as good at editing as I'd like. If I can ask what may be a stupid question, how is one to consider Wikipedia a tertiary source if one is not supposed to accept Wikipedia entries at face value? --Folic Acid 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Basically, you should not consider anything at face value, and should apply stringent verifiability, reliability of citations, and due weight, wherever. It is an absolutely pivotal practice, I feel, to thinking critically. El_C 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really necessary to duplicate whole paragraphs across pages? El_C 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured I should put my own views up as evidence too. --Folic Acid 18:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just dislike wastefulness, but you may of course duplicate whatever you see fit. El_C 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. I think we both have things to say about this particular case, and we both feel that they need consideration by the Committee. Not knowing if the Committee would give the things we write here any consideration, I felt that the best way to ensure that my comments would be read was to post them on the main page. --Folic Acid 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I just thought you would write something new, on the basis of the exchanges here, but it's fine. El_C 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Giovanni33's evidence

I trust that the Committee will also take these assertions with a grain of salt. While Giovanni33 seems to want to call John Smith's a "Probable Puppeteer," let it be shown that, in fact, John Smith's was NOT linked to the mysterious Hungarian IPs, as stated in his Suspected Sock Puppet case here. It seems more than a little misleading and disingenuous on Giovanni's part to portray that as "probable" sockpuppeteering, when John was judged to have no connection to those other users. Regarding the assertions of edit warring and incivility, this seems to be a clear case of WP:KETTLE, so again, I plead for grains of salt with this, since it seems that even if John stays within the rules, Giovanni assumes bad faith and accuses him of malfeasance.

Nanking Massacre--Same edit warring, multiple reverts in the course of a day:
So as not to break 3RR he waits a day and reverts 3 more times:
This goes on until the article gets protected by admin Deskana.

So, while my post here is not evidence in and of itself, I feel that it needs to be said, so as to offer a bit in the way of balance.

Respectfully submitted, --Folic Acid 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "I am not a puppet-master"

Regarding the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence#I am not a puppet-master comment by John Smith's: it is impossible to be 'absolved' of sockpuppetry unless you appear in person with the user you are accused of being. The closing admin, Akhilleus, made his judgement based on the evidence provided, determining it was not strong enough to show you were Foula or the "Hungarian IPs". So we can assume good faith that you are not a puppeteer, but comments by any one of 855 admins are in no way the be-all-and-end-all. Picaroon (t) 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I changed the statement - I hope it's more appropriate now. John Smith's 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we one admin short of 1337? I had the privilege to become the 420th admin (all desysoping accounted for). Naturally, chaos ensued. El_C 19:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RE:Endroit's questioning my impartiality

In response to El C's response to myself:

El C, I'm sure you're a valuable editor for Wikipedia. And I'm sure you're a great admin most of the time. However, you've got a major ideological clash with the rest of the Wikipedia community (advocating Che Guevara and all).

I've got nothing against you personally. So here's some friendly advice for you: If you want to continue being an admin, I suggest you recuse yourself from the ideologically motivated topics, when you perform your admin... er, mop-sweeping... tasks. Stay away from the Mao issue, stay away from Giovanni33 & John Smith's, and stay away from the Giovanni33 meatpuppets as well. You're way too deeply involved already.--Endroit 12:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. It isn't uncommon for a good editor - or even a good administrator - to have one or two hot buttons. The important thing is to recognize one's own hot buttons and refrain from pushing them. DurovaCharge! 14:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find Endroit's red-baiting, disparaging of ElC to be unacceptable, rather arrogant ('if you want to continue being an admin...?"), and a personal attack that is prohibited in WP: using someone's affiliations or political outlook as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views. Ths is contrary the norms of WP which, embraces the notions of pluralism. Thus, not only is there no ideological clash with the community in regards to ElC, but trying to discredit him based on this, instead of the merits of what he says, is a personal attack. No one is bringing up .the fact that you proudly proclaim on your user page to be a Reagan and George Bush supporter to suggest that what you say should be dismissed, or that you are out of line with the WP community believes ideologically (or the world for that matter!), and should therefore recuse yourself, not edit in political articles, etc. If someone did say that, I'd come to your defense, even if you are a reactionary. WP does not take sides in political and ideological differences: we reflect the great diversity of thought from all major angles and present that neutrally in accord with NPOV policies in regard to encylopedic knowledge. ElC has proven himself over the many years as an editor and admin to be able to exactly this, par excellence.Giovanni33 18:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An accusation of partiality is not a personal attack. El_C has shown himself to be partial more than once, including his continual assertion there is some sort of political conspiracy/double standards regime on Wikipedia against people that fall into dispute with "conservatives". His characterisation of people being conservative or non-conservative is an unhelpful mentality that divides rather than unites the project. As Durova said, someone can be a good editor and still make bad mistakes. You are also misrepresenting Endroit's comments. He did not criticise El_C for being Socialist - he pointed out his political leanings as being sympathetic towards yours, which has affected his judgment in how he has dealt with disputes concerning yourself. John Smith's 18:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want this to turn into yet another one of our characteristic back and forth arguments, so lets try to avoid directly engaging each other, yes? If you say that saying this about ElC: "you've got a major ideological clash with the rest of the Wikipedia community (advocating Che Guevara and all)" is not critical of El_C for being a socialist, then we disagree. In any case, I felt I needed to speak up against this. By the same token, I wonder if someone who criticized Endroit actions on the basis that he was a conservative republican and used that to make disparaging bad faith remarks against him on such a basis to dismiss his actions as ideologically motivated---you would say that that was ok? Because that is what I see him doing to El_C with all this "Marxist" stuff (when the issues are not even about Marxism, but about being even handed in regards to editing behavior and sanctions. El_C's records makes it clear that he has come to the said of conservatives, as well. So to bring up his ideology is fishing for bad faith motivations. This is different than regular political opponents who have edit/content disputes, jumping against me in an aggressive manner. Such is to be expected with partisan editors eager to see opponents banished, but that also is against WP norms (although its an unfortunate practice). El_C is noticing the role that is playing with the result of some very unequal and unfair treatment, which I think, is a correct observation. There is no need to attack/impugn him for his personal political beliefs, which is what I see Endroits doing here. To do so is without merit and is a personal attack.Giovanni33 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you would say that that was ok? No, because I don't believe Endroit was criticising El_C because of his political leanings - he was highlighting the leanings in question to show an ideological link between him and yourself. To do so is without merit and is a personal attack. But that is not what we have here, as I have already explained. John Smith's 19:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is contradictory. On the one hand you say "Endroit was not criticising El_C becaue of his political leanings, and on the other you say he is criticising a supposed ideological link between himself and me (as if that is relevant even!), to attack El_C's conduct as a fair administor on WP. Notice that its done on the basis of his "political leanings." So if that is your standard, then by that standard it would ok to likewise impugn Endroits political leaning as the basis for his allegedly one-sided comments directed against me? This is a violation of clear policy on the question and should be rejected.Giovanni33 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not misrepresent what I said. Endroit was not criticising the fact that El_C has similar political views, etc to you - I said that he was highlighting it. If he has criticised anything it is how the link between you and El_C (whether one of friendship, politics, whatever) has affected his judgment in regards to dealing with this matter and related ones concerning your behaviour. John Smith's 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is doing more than making a claim about El_C's supposed ideological link between us (itself an attack), he states:"If you want to continue being an admin, I suggest you recuse yourself from the ideologically motivated topics, when you perform your admin...."So, its questioning El_C's ability to be an admin due to his personal political outlook. Thus, its an attack on him due to his outlook, couched in his ability (or lackthereof) of doing admin duties. That is without merit and needs to be pointed out. And, yes, he was not critizing the fact that ElC has political views, he was critizing the fact that his political views were of a certain sort, left, and used that as the basis for his attack. That is uncalled for. While you see this a problem if it goes the other way, you seem to fail to see how its not appropriate when such thinking is used against ElC.Giovanni33 19:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giovanni, this is ridiculous. Saying that one's political views adversely colour the way they moderate is not a personal attack - it is a criticism. One can argue whether it is accurate or not, but that merely makes it a correct/mistaken view - it isn't a personal attack. I'll say it again, he is not criticising El_C for his views but the way it affects his judgment as an administrator. John Smith's 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a personal attack on the editor, instead of what he says: it attacks his very basis to even be an admin around issue that related to political ideology--simply on the basis that he has a stated political ideology. To attack on that basis is to attack him. You're are creating a straw man argument when you change the argument from what I describe and quote Endroit saying, to saying, "ones political views colors the way they moderate." Straw man. The attack is directed at his abilities, again based on his political affliliations. That is a prohibited form of an attack based on the violation of an assumption of good faith, and contrary to years of evidence (El_C's edits) proving otherwise. This needs to be repudiated. I'm sorry that you think its an ok thing to do to El_C, but I won't say you are doing it because of your "political ideology."Giovanni33 20:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it's straw man because I show a different interpretation from you? That's ludicrous. You'll need to try harder than that. John Smith's 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when your "interpretation" is an invention that is quite distinct from the actual terms, then to re-frame the argument by changing it so, is a straw man fallacy. This is shown by the fact that you ignore the real argument, and leave it untouched: The attack was on El_C's ability to conduct any admin activities on "ideological topics" because of the editors own political affliliations. As far as the separate argument regarding alleged affinity to my politics, this is a classic case of not assuming good faith, but it is also no less an attack. To make it very clear consider that El_C has provided some good reasons to explain why he did what he did. He explains it, looking at the facts, and seeing there is uneven, unfair actions, which he got involved out of a matter of sound principals, fairness, and what is best for WP. However, despite this evidence, and his explanations---they are ignored in favor of explaining his actions on the basis of his political ideology? Nonsense! Not only is there no evidence for that, its a major bad faith assumption that forms the nature of this personal attack on this fine admin and editor. Deal with the evidence and the argument El_C makes, instead of his alleged political motivations (which are soundly refuted by the evidence). I can only assume that there is no good argument to counter his, hence this baseless and illogical attack on him (Ad hominem fallacy).Giovanni33 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I address the issue at hand, let me confess to what Endroit will consider a conflict of interest: I am Jewish, yet I have edited the article on Jesus and on Judaism. I imagine Endroit and perhaps others will say that as a Jew I cannot possible make unbiased edits to the Jesus article, or the Judaism one for that matter. Now I will make my main point: I find this line of reaoning very very disturbing. Our non-negotiable policy, NPOV is predicated on the fat that all editors have biases. If having a bias meant one would have to recuse one's self from editing, then thee would be no editors and no Wikipedia. Rather, NPOV provides us with a framework by which ll of us biased editors can work together. Now to the case at hand: I have interacted with El_C on and off for as long as i can remember and i know him to be one of Wikipedia's most committed, productive, and serious contributors. Virtually any time I have an uncertainty about a content policy or how to apply it, I turn to him for advice, because i have learned two things about El C over the years: he is absolutely committed to our core policies, including NPOV, and he is absolutely commited to high levels of scholarly research.

So El C has a picture of Che on his user page. So what? I am frankly very disturbed by Endroit's staement, "However, you've got a major ideological clash with the rest of the Wikipedia community (advocating Che Guevara and all)." It actually sickens me (and I wil state outright i am not a fan of Che Guevara's). First of all, people have a right to do whatever they want with their user-pages; we should not blame El_C for being honest about his politics. If we try to punish everyone who expresses their political views, the only consequence is that people will not disclose them on their user-pages. Now i ask you to imageine, what if El_C's user-name were A_Smith, and he had a huge picture of a dollar sign on his user-page. Can we still imagine his having involved himself in this dispute in the way he has? For me the answer is an obvious yes. He has made two points: first, that in a debate between two editors, it is wrong to silence one and not the other (and his bias has been towards enabling both to edit, rather than silencing both). Second, he has insisted that scholarly sources be given preference over popular sources. Well, I am sure that Adam Smith ould have agreed with that! El_C's personal politics are irrelevant to his actions here.

His politics are relevant only to Endroit and perhaps others in frankly what seems to me to be a personal attack Let me repeat: Endroit's statement "However, you've got a major ideological clash with the rest of the Wikipedia community (advocating Che Guevara and all)" deeply disturbs me. Aside from the fact that I have never, ever, ever, ever seen El_C advocate Che Guevara in any article or article talk page .... who the hell is Endroit to tell any editor that he or she has a clach with "the rest of the Wikipedia community?" I find this insulting to the Wikipedia community and to the whole philosophy behind Wikipeida. Again, our core policy, NPOV, is predicated on our being an open community of diverse views. We should celebrate a heterogeneity of views. Endroit's comments stinks of a kind of McCarthyis, that because El_C isn't like you or me he doesn't belong here. That is simply the opposite of what any Wikipedian should say. It is a gross violation of WP:AGF. Endroit is insinuating that because El_C like Che he has a particular interest in articles on China or Mao. I hardly know where to begin. I'd like to tell Endroit that China and the Soviet Union were deadly enemies for most of the time their history overlapped; there is no basis at all to suggest that because one likes the Argentine physician, one also has a particular view of Mao. But that ignorant statement is beside the point: Endroit cannot provide ANY evidence (and on the evience page, no less!) that El_C's interventions in this conflict express political bias. No evidence at all. It is the perfect example of an ad hominem attack and Endroit's own comments are proof enough of their lack of value - if he had real evidence that El_C's interventions were biased, he would not need to refer to El_C's user-page. instead he would link El_C's edits to various policies and guidelines to show how in each case El_C showed poor judgement. Durova, at least tried to do that 9though i am unpursuaded by her examples).

I said Endroit's ignorance is beside the point, but actually, I realize it is very much to the point. Endroit is obviously ignorant of left-wing politics, and paints the whole political specturm that he does not blong to with a very broad brush. This makes it clear that it is Endroit who is not only politically biased (like I said, Wikipedia assumes we are all all of us biased) - it is clear tha Endroit's actions at Wikipedia are guided by his biases. Endroit is right that there is someone here whose impartiality disqualifies him from comment, but it is not El_C, it is Endroit himself.

What El_C is guilty of is not acting based on his political biases, that is what Endroit is guilty of. What El_C is guilty of is the opposite: El_C insists on solid research rather than political bias. He rightly points out the Chang's book, while popular, is very much a polemic and written for a popular audience. he points out repeatedly that academic research on China ought to be privileged in articles concerning China. El_C is guilty of being committed to our V policy, and to RS. El_C is guilty of wanting to hold encyclopedia articles up to high standards of scholarship.

When Larry Sanger quit, he made a big deal about the anti-intellectual environment at Wikipedia. Sadly, this episode is just one more piece of evidence supporting Sanger's claim. personally I think El_C is being persecuted not for his political beliefs but rather because he insists on putting scholarship above politics. This is a truly low point for Wikipedia Slrubenstein | Talk 05:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein says it very well and in a suitably Pomo fashion in my opinion. Endroit's comment to El C ("you've got a major ideological clash with the rest of the Wikipedia community (advocating Che Guevara and all)") sent a chill down my spine, even though I'm no Che advocate (I would hope it would send a chill down everyone's spine, regardless of their political beliefs). Making a statement like that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are doing here and what WP:NPOV is all about. The statement "if you want to continue being an admin, I suggest you recuse yourself from the ideologically motivated topics" is equally chilling. Everyone (or most everyone) has politics. That's not special. Whether you get down with foquismo (which isn't exactly the same thing as Maoism incidentally, so I'm not sure how one could infer anything about El C's attitudes about Mao from the fact that he might like Che) or Reaganomics you of course have a right to edit on any topic you choose so long as you follow our core policies. I see no evidence from Endroit that El C has failed to do that, just vague insinuations about his user page and his political beliefs which could not be less relevant. I can't help but think that Durova did not think carefully about the full implications of what Endroit had written before chiming in with a "here, here" above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken: it's not so much the particular bent of a sysop's beliefs so much as the credible possibility that personal beliefs influence the administrator's use of the tools. For instance, the recent block of Matt57 and the thread WP:ANI#Ongoing_Harassment_by_Matt57: better to recuse oneself and seek independent review than to risk one's credibility. DurovaCharge! 09:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is equally important not to allow notions of one's own credibility to cloud the interests of the project, nor to maintain it supersedes the rights, or gravity, of an established editor. At any rate, I feel I am being mistreated here. Having been a model admin longer than Durova has been an editor, I am afforded very little credibility from herself and others. The cold hard fact is that I have taken two admin tasks related to this case: 1. I blocked JS' for a legitimate/technical 3rr violation as part of eleven other 3rr/an3 cases during that hour. 2. I reduced Giovanni's block from two weeks to three days, a duration that was recommended by an uninvolved editor who investigated the matter and was supported by several other editors and admins (including FaysalF whom Durova cited on my talk page as a model admin). And that is it. As far as editing, I neither edited any of the articles involved in this dispute, nor any other ones cited on the evidence or talk page, ever. El_C 09:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For nearly two years I've volunteered at dispute resolutions and investigations. My first experiences as an editor were dogged by two long-term disruptors who did their best to bait me into discrediting myself. Because I didn't take that bait, Joan of Arc became a featured article and the Joan of Arc vandal no longer disrupts a wide range of articles. It took me over a year to build enough credibility that people would look at a report because his damage had pervaded so many pages for so long, most people's initial reaction was disbelief. Although I had dearly wanted to oblige, a month before the siteban I recused myself from a request to implement a block because I correctly guessed the offending account was one of his sockpuppets and ironically, just before the actual siteban he appealed to me for support because I agreed with him at one dispute.
I cowrote the disruptive editing guideline and have taken on the usually thankless task of bringing closure to long-festering situations. I've been trolled offsite because of that commitment. This is my nineteenth arbitration case, yet in not a single one of those cases has any finding or sanction even been proposed against me. I'm open to recall and when the standards for recall loosened I voluntarily pledged to abide by the original terms of my participation, yet no RFC has ever been attempted on me. Not a lot of administrators specialize in the hard cases and those who do tend to trolled until they get desysopped or leave the site. The only way to remain effective is to take a long view.
El C, by alleging bias on my part you open the door to questions regarding your own objectivity. Yours is more open to challenge than mine. I shouldn't need to defend myself because there really hasn't been any evidence provided, but should the need arise I can cite Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel where I was the lone defender of an editor whose ideology I despised and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate where after arbitration I awarded a barnstar to an editor against whom I'd given evidence. I would also cite Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS in connection with this case: in all three I brought matters to arbitration because the community failed to reach consensus and in all three one side of the dispute made wholly unfounded accusations of bias because of my intervention. My view is that you and I merely disagree on the appropriate resolution to a longstanding problem and I can disagree respectfully because these cases with established editors are so difficult. I request you either strikethrough your evidence statement regarding my supposed bias or substantiate the claim. DurovaCharge! 14:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, not that refractored note again.[1] My record of being evenhanded and my own involvement in dispute resolution on the project is equally lengthy to yours (I may not make lists of these, but I assure that that record does exist), if not more so. I specialize in some of the most difficult articles on the project: the ethno-national ones. My evidence page explicitly states "I did not argue she was biased," yet you'd like me to strike out comments "regarding [your] supposed bias"? This "yours is more open to challenge than mine" line of argument sounds like reflexive defensiveness which I urge you to be more mindful. El_C 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be more blunt: I think you acted with haste, that your grounds to act were based on somewhat superficial evidentiary basis, in this case. That dosen't mean your entire credibility is now up to question (you may or may not take such a disproportionate approach to years of service by myself, but that is not my way). You are making this to be far too much about you: it isn't. El_C 21:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's call it a philosophical difference: when an editor violates fundamental policies without anything worse than a couple days' block, repeated ad infinitum, then more weighs in the balance than the positive and negative elements of that particular editor's contributions. That person sets the wrong example for newcomers, tolerance of that person lends credibility to critics who accuse sysops of hypocrisy, and the situation creates a net drain on a variety of volunteer editors' time and goodwill. Editors who fail to exercise sufficient self-restraint can expect external restraints and those who have long histories of insufficient self control can expect diminished patience from the community. The options are crude: siteban, topic ban, revert parole, or perhaps something else. I wish I had a magic solution, but I'd rather take some heat than let a longstanding problem continue to fester.
BTW:
DurovaCharge! 05:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to keep citing those RfArs; I certainly have no intention in noting any of the tens of cases where I aided the Committee (not to mention the hundreds of ones where my intervention prevented a potential case from happening, thereby saving all concerned much time and stress). And we have no philosophical difference here, just a disagreement with the application of that philosophy in one particular case. El_C 06:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El C, you've demanded that I support sanctions against an editor without providing evidence. When I requested evidence you repeated the demand and accused me of bias. When I provided evidence of my lack of bias you accused me of trying to make this case about myself. This is known as proof by assertion, argumentum ad nauseam, and argumentum ad hominem. I've respected your choices as an administrator in the past, yet I get quite curious whenever I see a Wikipedian behave in this way. DurovaCharge! 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is this assertion that you keep repeating, that I accused you of bias, that's beginning to approach argumentum ad infinitum at this point. I did no such thing. I felt you were not being evenhanded, that need not be a product of bias. All I said was that there needs to be a symmetrical formula for the Chang set of articles. I did not demand sanctions, per se., and your demand for "evidence" was too vague to respond to. El_C 14:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, I repeat: my evidence page reads: "I did not accuse her of bias"; then you asked that I "strike out" comments I made on the evidence page "regarding [your] supposed bias"; then I reiterate that I did not accuse you of bias; now once again, you write that "[I] accused [you] of bias." Is there an end to this circularity? I, too, have respected your choices as an administrator in the past, yet I, too, get quite curious whenever I see a Wikipedian behave in this way. El_C 15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And since you raised the notion of argumentum ad hominem (without basis, I feel), I'll add that I was surprised to see your seeming approval for Endroit's methods which I felt were beneath you. El_C 15:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The El C / Che connection is part of my evidence, and very well founded. El C has delved into the content dispute too deeply to act impartially as an admin. Jung Chang's book is just new information, not "revisionist history" like El C claims it to be. Read Evidence presented by ElC in this Arbcom case... it's limited particularly to the Mao dispute, and roughly along the political lines I suggested.
In contrast, my case will cover the more deeply rooted WP:POINT violations by Giovanni33, which El C has completely ignored, in a biased way. There will be even more damning evidence forthcoming, showing further lack of impartiality by El C, which should be even more chilling for everyone (including me).--Endroit 10:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More damning even than the portion of your "evidence" that consists of a picture of Che with the caption "Che Guevara, also known as El Che, was a Marxist"? If you want people to take you seriously here, I highly recommend removing that image. It of course serves no useful (much less evidentiary) purpose whatsoever, and I think most will simply conclude that you are attempting to tar El C with the "Marxist" epithet (in a rather crude fashion) by posting it there. Incidentally as has been mentioned above, given that you obviously don't know much about left politics (which is totally fine) you should know that there are roughly 30,000 different varieties of "Marxists" throughout history. Often these differing flavors of Marxism have a great deal of antipathy toward one another, and though Che was inspired by Mao, a Guevarist (if El C even is that--I have no idea) could very easily not care for Mao. The fact that I even felt compelled to write the two preceding sentences speaks to the ridiculousness of this discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This increasingly feels like persecution. Again, I never edited those articles, nor made privy to any such violations to presumably ignore. El_C 10:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El C, even if you don't edit the articles, you have persecuted John Smith's, while positively favoring Giovanni33. You therefore have clearly taken sides on the issue, by loudly defending the Mao/Giovanni33 position.--Endroit 10:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not persecuted anyone, nor have I been deeply involved in monitoring this dispute. El_C 10:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EL_C is the one being persecuted, and I hope another admin will consider properly chastizing Endroit for violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA. "The El_C/Che connection is part of my evidence, and very well founded" - no one questions the connection, what we ALL question is what it is evidence of, and how it is relevant except as part of an attempt to turn this from a discussion of appropriate editing and dispute mediation into an ideological battle. I just checked Endroit's user page and guess what I discovered? he is a follower of Ronald Reagan! I am "just providing evidence" of the Enreoit-Reagan connection which clearly means that Endroit is too biased to comment on El_C or any article relating to communism or socialism ... is this really the road we want to go down? No. It is a bad idea by any standard, and it completely violates the core principles of Wikipedia. Evidence about one's political beliefs is irrelevant. Let's stick to evidence abou edits and other actions. That's a 3RR block, and a reduction in another block. Evidence is facts concerning edits and editor's behavior necessary to assess whether these two acts were in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Period. Anything else is a smear campaign and a violation of WP:NPA. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El C appears to use ideological identifications himself... "the campaign to inject and interject Changism". Those are El C's own words, and a personal attack against John Smith's. Is El C willing to back off on the personal attacks against John Smith's?--Endroit 11:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that passage were to be directed toward JS', it would not be a personal attack, but at the event, it was not directed toward himself but rather touched on a broader trend whereby conventional history is being revised across multiple entries on account of Chang's book (take for example the Korean War), which is given undue weight on Wikipedia, weight otherwise absent from the pertinent historiography outside it. El_C 11:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, El_C. It's obvious I'm the target. After all you said this - "he should not be permitted to continue, indefinitely, to act as Chang's propagandist". That is certainly a personal attack. John Smith's 12:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No John, that's a comment on behaviour, which isn't a personal attack. Endroit's attack on El C for his beliefs - that's a PA. Comments on a pattern on behaviour - NOT PAs. Guettarda 12:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very strong and charged allegation to make. You're implying it's ok to make nasty comments of people if you can interpret their behaviour a certain way. That's hardly the best way to foster community and understanding - it's a fast way to make someone defensive and unco-operative. John Smith's 13:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that commenting on a pattern of behaviour isn't the same as blackballing someone for their beliefs. As for "a fast way to make someone defensive and unco-operative" - after more than a year of blocks for 3rrvios, I don't see how you can blame your behaviour on one comment by El C. Are his comments really to blame for over a year of disruptive behaviour on your part? You really shouldn't give another person that level of control over your behaviour. Guettarda 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More gremlins causing problems for you, I think. Where did I say anything about my behaviour? What I was saying is that calling someone a propagandist or something of that ilk is extremely unhelpful, etc generally. I.e. even if you want to say it is not a personal attack, it is still an unacceptable comment that should be removed (if you feel Endroit's should also be removed). John Smith's 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although he has couched it in rather sophisticated language, Endoit has done nothing but utter a schoolyard insult, and seems to think that (a) it's acceptable and (b) it's proof of anything. While the basic rule of NPA is "play the ball, not the man" [think Association football, not American football). Saying that El C is by definition too biased to edit these articles (on the basis of his political ideology) is a personal attack. Endoit also seems to think that it's "adequate" to simply attack El C's politics, that calling someone "communist" is proof of anything (other than one's own lack of imagination). And, to some extent, it works - Americans are trained to respond to that slur. So what next - connect his ethnicity with his politics and blame him for helping to overthrow the tsar? Be serious.

It is unacceptable to attack people on the basis of their political beliefs. If Endroit had shown a pattern of behaviour in the "evidence" he submitted, and had then attributed an underlying cause to the behaviour (i.e., El C's politics), he might have been ok. Instead, what he has done is taken an opinion and used that as the basis for his attack. (Please note, the first element in his "evidence" is "El C" is obviously an acronym for "El Che" (or "El Commandante"). He calls that evidence? How does he know that L.C. aren't initials? (I seem to remember someone making a word out of S and J and turning it into a user name as well). So first, sans any sort of evidence, Endroit makes up crap for "evidence". Then he takes two actions, and uses them as "evidence".

Attacking people on the basis of their political views is totally unacceptable. We judge people on their actions. Endroit's evidence page presents two actions by El C: a three-day block against John Smith, and a three-day block against Giovanni. Wow - evidence that he has treated both members of this dispute in the same manner. Maybe we should commend El C on his fairness and unbiased approach...and caution Endroit about his use of personal attacks. Guettarda 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, so it's ok for El_C to call me "Chang's propagandist"? Can I call Giovanni "Mao's propagandist" or El_C "Che's propagandist" and expect no criticism in return?
Yes, actions are important and I would have thought that El_C's rather one-sided rant that completely ignores anything and everything that Giovanni has ever done was a good indication of his bias. As for the length of the blocks, that is irrelevant. As far as I can see, the block he put on me was designed to be punishment. As has been explained, the page was protected and the 3RR report had been dealt with. Now if he wants to come out with an apology and say he was wrong to block me as the page was protected and the report already actioned, no problem. However, it's up to him to do that.
As for Giovanni, he reduced what was a very long block without gaining consensus first. So what we have is El_C trying to put a block on me when there was no need (without gaining consensus) and reducing Giovanni's block (again, without consensus). John Smith's 13:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Guettarda, so it's ok for El_C to call me "Chang's propagandist"? Can I call Giovanni "Mao's propagandist" or El_C "Che's propagandist" and expect no criticism in return?"
I'm sorry...is that seriously what you got from my comments? I'm sorry, there must be some gremlins at work on your computer screen, inserting random bits on information which aren't really on the Wikipedia page.
"As for the length of the blocks, that is irrelevant"
Really? El C blocked both parties in the dispute for the same amount of time. That's extremely relevant. It suggests that he saw both 3RRvios as equally bad. Endroit makes an accusation of bias - treating both sides the same way is the opposite of bias.
As far as I can see, the block he put on me was designed to be punishment. As has been explained, the page was protected and the 3RR report had been dealt with.
That isn't what the archive says. El C said:
In light of the user's past violations, I would have approached this differently, but I didn't notice this was alreayd being attended to, so I leave the case to Deskana's discretion. El_C 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds about right to me. Someone who has racked up that many 3RRvios has made a case that they don't have any respect for the community and its rules. Forgive me if I don't find your argument convincing - you really can't show that level of contempt for the community, and then expect special treatment. So no, treating you and Giovanni in exactly the same manner shows remarkable consistency and even-handedness. That aside, two isolated incidents four months apart are not a pattern of behaviour, and they do not justify Endroit's attacks on El C. On the other hand, your multiple blocks, over the course of more than a year, by six different admins is clearly a pattern of behaviour. Guettarda 13:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry...is that seriously what you got from my comments? Well you did say that it is not a personal attack to call someone a propagandist. Or are you suggesting it is not a personal attack but a different sort of unacceptable comment?
El C blocked both parties in the dispute for the same amount of time. But not at the same time. When he blocked me, he ignored Giovanni's own behaviour. When he blocked Giovanni, he was reducing a block imposed by another admin in regards to a completely different dispute.
you really can't show that level of contempt for the community, and then expect special treatment Where did I ask for special treatment? I think the gremlins have spread to your computer as well.
So no, treating you and Giovanni in exactly the same manner shows remarkable consistency and even-handedness. As I pointed out, he hasn't treated Giovanni and myself in the same way. If he had, he would have seen Giovanni edit-warring and taken action against him at the same time.
On the other hand, your multiple blocks, over the course of more than a year, by six different admins is clearly a pattern of behaviour As to being Jung Chang's propagandist? John Smith's 14:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Well you did say that it is not a personal attack to call someone a propagandist"
I said that commenting on behaviour wasn't the same as attacking someone for their beliefs.
"But not at the same time"
And that is relevant how? Was there a 3rr report made against Giovanni at the same time? Please provide a link. Were you blocked for two weeks when Giovanni was? How does "at the same time" have any relevance whatsoever? He applied the same standard to both of you - that's called fairness.
"Where did I ask for special treatment?
You seem to think that you are entitled to violate Wikipedia policy. That's asking for special treatment. You repeatedly violate Wikipedia policy, and you expect not to be blocked on a technicality (the 3RR policy, as adopted by the community says that you should be blocked for violating the policy. Many people don't block once the page is protected, but policy still suggests that a block is in order). That's asking for special treatment. Quite frankly, the fact that you are still around shows that the community is willing to bend over backwards for troublemakers. In other words, the fact that you still think you have a right to edit Wikipedia at all shows that you expect special treatment. Guettarda 14:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that is relevant how? Was there a 3rr report made against Giovanni at the same time? In that case, why was Giovanni blocked for 48 hours along with me when he wasn't reported him for a 3RR vio? It's clear that a person can be blocked without a 3RR report against them - it happens all the time.
Were you blocked for two weeks when Giovanni was? Why would I have been? Giovanni was in dispute with other editors.
You repeatedly violate Wikipedia policy, and you expect not to be blocked on a technicality I never expected anything. I was writing to El_C about how I thought the block was invalid, when I found that Deskana had removed the block. If it is wikipedia policy that blocks are preventative and not meant as punishment, then that is the case. That's all I was pointing out.
Quite frankly, the fact that you are still around shows that the community is willing to bend over backwards for troublemakers. In other words, the fact that you still think you have a right to edit Wikipedia at all shows that you expect special treatment. I would disagree with that, but if that is your view then the same would apply to Giovanni. Of course I would say that he is the real troublemaker in all of this. John Smith's 14:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of the situation is that JS expects El C to be censured for not being aware that the page was protected. Having broken the 3RR, JS should expect to be blocked. He escapes a block on a technicality. But he wants to criticise El C for either not noticing that technicality, or not subscribing to an interpretation of the 3RR policy. Wow. Guettarda 14:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words in my mouth. I hardly would expect El_C to be censured for that alone. However, he did enforce a block even after the report had been labelled "no action". If Deskana had not said anything on the report, of course El_C would have been entitled to action it. But Deskana had already made a response. John Smith's 14:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John Smith's, bear in mind that I'm not defending you. If the people who criticized you had built a separate case with diffs when this was at the community level, it's likely I would have advocated at least a topic ban on you. As I cautioned when I offered community enforceable mediation, your insistence that parity does not exist has precipitated arbitration where you may very well receive far more serious remedies than you and Giovanni33 would have imposed upon yourselves. DurovaCharge! 14:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova, I know you are not defending me at all - it's one reason why I think you are actually being very impartial in all of this. As to the proposed remedies, I know what arbitration was about. This is why I was saddened that El_C kept trying to veto anything that did not impose the same restrictions on myself as Giovanni. I was happy for my conduct to be addressed if someone wanted to raise another case. Forcing the same remedy on myself as Giovanni without the community even discussing it was clearly not appropriate. El_C had the chance to agree to reviewing Giovanni's behaviour and then mine, but he didn't seem to care about what the community felt. He wanted something, so he put his foot down. John Smith's 15:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<ri>"Please do not put words in my mouth"

That's hilarious, given your actions above, where you did exactly that.

"I hardly would expect El_C to be censured for that alone"

That's fine. Of course, we are talking about Endroit's evidence here. And, of course, it's the only thing I see in your evidence section. I can only go by what you have said, not what you may or may not have intended to say.

"[H]e did enforce a block even after the report had been labelled "no action". If Deskana had not said anything on the report, of course El_C would have been entitled to action it. But Deskana had already made a response"

That's your interpretation of the sequence of events. On the page in question, El C provides a different explanation. What reason do you have to doubt his account? On the basis of what evidence should we fail to extend good faith and disbelieve his explanation for his actions? You are accusing El C of dishonesty. Do you have any basis for this accusation, or is it simply an unsupported attack on him? Not only does El C's explanation appear entirely plausible (in my experience, it's easy to spend 10-15 minutes investigating a 3RRvio report), but had he decided to disagree with Deskana, El C would have been acting in accordance with the 3RR. Deskana was the one who chose to apply an exception to the policy. We have two opinions. Both of them acted in accordance with the blocking policy. When Deskana undid El C's block, his response was to defer to Deskana's opinion. Two equally valid opinions were expressed, El C chose to defer despite his difference of opinion. In other words, he acted admirably. Guettarda 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's hilarious, given your actions above, where you did exactly that. Well in that case we're no better than each other, are we?
Deskana was the one who chose to apply an exception to the policy. So is it or is it not policy that blocks are preventative, not punitive? All over the 3RR report page I have seen the results of reports as being "page protected". So it isn't just Deskana that is making "exceptions" to policy as far as I can see. John Smith's 18:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, he acted admirably. If he had blocked Giovanni as well I might believe you. However he sought to only block me. Now I remember you making a fuss over the fact I was unblocked on a technicality - in that case I'm not sure why Giovanni should have got off on a technicality, as he was edit-warring as well. John Smith's 18:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because: first, he was not listed on an3 at the time for having violated it, and second, you were revert warring with HongQiGong (revert one and two [2] [3]), as well as Giovanni (revert three and four [4] [5]) ; third, there were eleven other cases there I closed during that hour. It amazes me to hear you repeat the assertion that I ignored that case having been closed and purposefully over-ruled Deskana after I keep saying, explicitly, that it was a mistake (I mean, seeing the ten minute difference between our two entries,[6] [7] is it not at least plausible that I'm not lying?). I have closed hundreds of an3 cases in my day and this is far from the biggest error I made on that board. Beyond this single 3rr block, John Smith seems to think that if he keeps diverting attention from his own actions and keep focusing on myself with this single act (which in the scope of things is rather minor), he is somehow absolved of being disruptive. Much like Endriot, I'm expected to account for what Giovanni has done elsewhere; even alleged violations I am not privy to turn into acts I willfully ignored. Look how much time and effort John Smith's has spent on this single 3rr block, effectively having me rearticulate what I had already written on the evidence page. His focus on myself has long passed the point of a distraction to become an out right diversion. And he said in the evidence that I am the one after "a pound of flesh"... El_C 20:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he was not listed on an3 at the time for having violated it As I pointed out, Giovanni and myself were blocked at the same time recently despite the fact he alone was reported.
second, you were revert warring with HongQiGong... as well as Giovanni So that means you couldn't take action against either or them, didn't want to or hadn't got around to it?
after I keep saying, explicitly, that it was a mistake Well I didn't actually see you use the word "mistake" here or on the evidence page. But you have used it now, so I would at least accept that point.
John Smith seems to think that if he keeps diverting attention from his own actions and keep focusing on myself with this single act (which in the scope of things is rather minor), he is somehow absolved of being disruptive Now then El_C I have never said that, nor does such an assertion make any sense whatsoever. The focus could have been moved on at any time with a simple "I personally think you're wrong - let's move on" statement. I can't control the discussion, so don't blame me for people responding to my comments.
Also you keep ignoring the simple fact you have not made one comment about anything Giovanni has done. If you want to insist you are being equal in this, you have to add something to your evidence about what he has done. If you don't then you yourself are trying to divert attention away from him (and maybe yourself too) by only wanting to talk about me.
And he said in the evidence that I am the one after "a pound of flesh" Well you were the one that insisted Giovanni and myself had to have the same restrictions, rather than let the community decide what to do. John Smith's 20:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said that your proposal, whereby you would have a revert advantage over him for this set of articles –notwithstanding your promise not to use that advantage to your advantage– is problematic and that a symmetrical formula makes more sense. El_C 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, I think it's my turn to question why I have to keep repeating statements I have already made elsewhere. I said that my proposal was in regards to settle the dispute over what to do with Giovanni as he was the party that had been indefinite blocked, with some people wanting to keep that block and others arguing for a less harsh restriction. It was not supposed to be the only restriction/control put on myself as it was obvious that anyone could bring my conduct up separately and ask for comments on what to do. Indeed I pointed out that I was not opposed to anyone bringing up my conduct and arguing for restrictions to be put on me.
Also you did insist on us having the same restrictions put on us at the same time. If you deny this, please say where you indicated that you were happy for Giovanni and myself to be reviewed separately, because from what I read you rather suggested you wouldn't accept anything else. For example when User:Raymond arritt said on CSN "My view of parity is that we consider each case equally dispassionately on its own merits." you responded negatively. I'll say it again, arbitration would have been avoided if you had accepted Raymond's interpretation of parity and not objected to our cases being discussed on a separate basis. John Smith's 21:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that interpretation of events; I continue to reject a revert-advantage formula imposed for this set of articles. El_C 00:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute that interpretation of events Then please provide evidence where you were happy for our cases to be reviewed separately. John Smith's 06:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, each individual is reviewed... individually, the reference was to that aforementioned formula. El_C 06:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are avoiding discussion of what actually happened. You insisted that Giovanni and myself be put under the same controls before the community itself had decided what to do or how to approach the matter. It's not up to you to arbitrarily decide how the community has to respond. I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to accept your role in making a community resolution nearly impossible. The community appeared willing to agree that Giovanni shouldn't be indefinitely blocked - the issue was which controls should be implimented. You then insisted those controls should be put on me, regardless of what they would be or what others thought on the matter. That killed off any chance of a community decision, as you were unable to get anywhere near consensus for that demand but wouldn't give up on it. John Smith's 09:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I maintained that article probation for that set of articles should be symmetrical; I still maintain that. El_C 10:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you should not have made it a "take it or leave it deal". Durova wanted consensus, and it was clear you were not going to agree to myself and Giovanni having our cases reviewed separately and potentially have different restrictions put on us. Your opinion counted like everyone else's, but you should have allowed the community to decide on a way forward rather than insist you have your way. John Smith's 10:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have agreed to a separate review, but felt that your proposal was gaming the system. El_C 11:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to answer you in advance: yes, it is possible to have varying remedies and still reach limited symmetry. For example, say Giovanni is placed on a revert restriction for all articles, including Chang-related ones; whereas you are placed on a revert restriction for Chang-related ones only. It's purely hypothetical formulæ, but it illustrates how it's possible for neither one of you to enjoy a revert advantage with respect to Chang-related articles. El_C 11:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, it's all very well you saying this now, but you didn't say this at the time. You said you wanted me to be placed under the same controls as Giovanni - you didn't say anything about my revert parole being limited to certain articles. You also appeared, whether you meant to or not, opposed to our cases being reviewed separately - the comment that came up over and over again from various users was "let's deal with Giovanni first and then move on to [me]". You weren't happy with that. Of course both of us could have been put on some form of revert parole, but you can't insist on that before the community has even sat down to consider it. John Smith's 13:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I did, but it's possible it was a misunderstanding. Which is regrettable. El_C 13:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endroit, using El C's apparent personal views as evidence that he has a conflict of interest isn't going to fly. If you can show diffs and log action indicating El C has acted unfairly in favor of Giovanni and against John, show them, but a portrait and a username relating to Che are unconvincing proof of bias on Mao-related topics. John, if you can prove your assertion that El C deliberately overruled Deskana, do so on the evidence page; if you can't, there's no use repeating it. Picaroon (t) 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the points of this case need to be directed to whether Smith and Giovanni33 have engaged in edit warring oftentimes enough, or been blocked enough that both or either of them deserve to be placed on 1RR or similar.--MONGO 14:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Endroit's "friendly advice" here was a criticism of the way El C performs his admin duties, it would contain at least one example of failure to perform them well. It doesn't contain that. (Couldn't find anything, eh?) That shortfall makes it instead a personal attack based on El C's political opinions. That's inappropriate, distasteful, and in breach of some half dozen major policies. As for Mao and Che Guevara, he hasn't even edited those articles—it's nonsense to make it a point that he needs to "stay away" from them. And, Durova? His admin record rivals yours, so you're really jumping into the wrong barrel in trying to cow him by referring to your own services to the project. His are as impressive. He specializes as he says in some of the most difficult areas of the project, and his record for even-handedness there is superb. Agree with Slrubenstein, I hate to see El C mobbed on this page. Bishonen | talk 16:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Let me start by saying that I agree El C is a great admin, although not in this particular case.
My "friendly advice" was merely a suggestion for El C to recuse himself, before I begin to build a case against him. Nothing more. I take it his answer is "no"?
Also, I haven't even started to present my case against El C yet so hold your guns. For starters, most of my material will be forthcoming from the raw data available now at /Evidence#AN3 Reports, Blocks, & Near Blocks and any related talk pages.
This case is foremost about Giovanni33, not El C. It'll first take at least a week for me to build my case against Giovanni33, and then I'll build a case against El C if I have to. (If I don't need to build a case against El C, I won't, because the main issue was Giovanni33 to begin with, not El C).
Also, I have a motion placed at /Workshop#Motion to contact all involved. Not all the parties relevant to this case have been contacted yet. Is there any reason we shouldn't contact everyone?
Picaroon, please continue to let me know anything else I need to be aware of. And Picaroon, if you believe my material is getting too long, can you push off my "AN3 Reports, Blocks, & Near Blocks" chart to a subpage? Thank you all for your patience.--Endroit 17:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere thanks; I appreciate your kind words very much, and am pleased to learn that you consider me "a great admin". As for your 'ultimatum' (and I'm sorry to call it that, but that's exactly how it comes across as), I have already decided to recuse myself from admin tasks related to John Smith's, Giovanni33, and Mao: The Untold Story-related articles long before you made your presence felt in this arbitration case (despite the fact that I never edited those articles and that my involvement with both editors has, overall, been rather minor). I do so on account of appearances, if for no other reason. I, of course, am always open to balanced and constructive review, so do feel free to do whatever you see fit (but try to be more judicious about what may or may not befit these proceedings).
By extension, let me remind you that, on Wikipedia, we do not "build cases against editors." We may compile evidence about them, evidence that may be critical, that may end up reflecting negatively on that individual, etc.; but the prosecutorial approach you have adopted here (a priori looking for the negative; collecting evidence "against" someone) contradicts the spirit and ethos of our dispute resolution model. Equally striking is that you are only building a case "against" those whose beliefs your ideology runs contrast to. El_C 11:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that El_C overruled me intentionally. I find El_C to be a good administrator, and one that I respect. If he is at fault in that situation (which I do not believe he is), then it is only for not reading WP:AN/3 closely enough, not for undoing my actions. --Deskana (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deskana. The feeling is entirely mutual. It wasn't even the most difficult an3 notice to handle of the twelve I closed during that hour (User:Otto4711's case from a few minutes before, and his following response [8] epitomizes the challenges admins face on that board). El_C 11:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope I have never come across as being anywhere as hostile to you as that Otto guy. :) John Smith's 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33-John_Smith%27s/Evidence&oldid=1137443823"