Case Opened on 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Case Closed on 02:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.
In the last weeks i was more and more rollbacked in my contributions in wikiarticles. I am aware to have not a very well english, but still, all is happening now is beyound any previous problem. I started to post much material in July-August, but in the last month i posted less and handled less articles (except those in which i made only minor edits).
Despite this, now there is a continous, logorating action made by these two admins to delete every post i make so i must write in the discussion page only, 'to correct herrors'. Even i was forced to do so, still in those pages these contributions are without any attention and this happens since weeks. Pages as B-50 [[1]], CF-104 [[2]], Aeritalia G.91 [[3]], and just yesterday i dared to write some datas on EH101 [[4]], promptly roll-backed in just one minute, while some raw datas in F-86 are in discussion to be reverted as well!
And those had forced me to write only in talks not only humiliate myself but also don't bother to make their 'corrections'. This situation cannot run so badly for more time. I am in fact, forbidden to edit in main, and treaten to be blocked if i dare to do so. Is it possible to find a solution? Actually i am in fact out of editing in main, eveny few bites are promptly deleted..--Stefanomencarelli 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, first of all, in wiki.it i was blocked and not banned. Second, you continue to accuse me of Copyviol, a thing that NOBODY has ever proof even in wiki.it after one and half year of 'service'. And God knows if someone has wanted to proof this. No way, i am basically incapable to make such jokes to someone else, and i do not need to make copyviols. I repeat to you too what i already said to you other times: i challenge the rest of world to found where i make copyviols. Period. I don't have to fear nothing about this issue.
Second, the thing had raised this is related to the kindly attenctions that swiftly Bill and Bzuk have paid to my *tiny contributions* in EH101 and F-86. Just because i had some datas at the hands and thinked well, nothing happens with G.91, then i will add some stuff to these pages: who will be worried for half kb of contributes?. Wrong. The next morning one was debated, the other deleted because lacks of sources. I have stated that i was temporaney uncapable to post them. Kindly, instead to trow gasoline on fire, can Bill or Bzuk ask to me sources? Bzuk has even questioned datas on F-86 'after checked them' while i, 'after checked them' in the Web have swiftly found two site matching my numbers. Strangely enough, i'd say.
So Akra: agreements are fine, but if you get a look on indian reserves, you'll realize that such 'agreements' works only if both parts acts in accourd. It's not what i see about. When agreement are respected just by one side, it's more similar to apartheid. And the mere fact of BillBC is not present here to discuss (just as he have always done: no discussion, just rollbacks) speaks a volume.--Stefanomencarelli 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, some points:
1-You accuse me to make copyviols? About what kind of proof? The only text added was Goebel site about Saab 37 Viggen that's not copyviol because is declared PUBLIC DOMAIN. And still in the discussion talk page Bzuk has argued that it's copyviol, raising the extreme boundary of ridicolous. Do you are not in agreement, bright eyes? Then ask to my ex-fellows in wiki if i was EVER found guilty of copyviol. So this is not a statement, it's a slander and nothing else. And so in wikipedia there must be not personal attacks heh? And accusing me of copyviol WITHOUT any proof what is it? A compliment?
3-At that point, AKRadecki and John stepped in, and tried to reason with him, but these attempts were less than successful, as recounted above. It is my belief that after three long months of Stefanomencarelli's contributions to Wikipedia, he has proven his inability to get along with others here, and does not try to abide by the most basic of Wiki's Contribution Policies.
What about your capability to relate with myself? Come and delete my conributes is not a friendly manner to act. Where is your right to accuse me to be 'asocial' when you even not tried to make discussions? You even delete protest posts in your talk and never bother to answer? What i should think? That i am in a prison?
4-It is my belief that after three long months of Stefanomencarelli's contributions to Wikipedia, he has proven his inability to get along with others here, and does not try to abide by the most basic of Wiki's Contribution Policies. This has nothing to do with the fact that he is not a native speaker of English, nor that he is not from a primarily-English country, especially since most of these problems were present in the Italian Wikipedia, where the language should not be a problem.
X BZUK Bis: Despite this current request for arbitration, the editor in question has continued editwarring with other editors even while this process is being considered
What's? This is my edit contribution: [[5]]. Where is that i am going to make wars? One user has deleted F-86 edits with the excuse of 'unreliable datas' adding a link that not even function. I remarked that my datas, sorry, are corrects and supported. And asked to revert that modiphic. I explained to you why and what was right about my assemptions, and you instead to answer to me came here talking of edit wars? That's not exactly what i expected by one guy in good faith, but now i understand a bit better what's in your mind= max damage, min cost, and who cares to make a decent encyclopedia, important is strike 'unliked' users, right?
With the above list made by you vs myself (please don't tell me that you are criticizing just my work here), it's cleary necessary a lot of 'courage' to assert that i 'prefer to attack the person rather than issues'. Perhaps you too have a bit confusion to discriminate one to the other.--Stefanomencarelli 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that i am loosing much time with this issues. I just want to remark some very basic points:
I have said and i don't want to post anymore. These last days were for me a sort of trial agains me (it's easy:POV, bad english, italian sources etc. etc.), while to me the abuses were performed by Bzuk and Bill. Evidently it's easy to point out my defects, rather than the huge amount of work that i done for wiki.
Now i will only wait. Wasting three hours a day for editing in discussions makes me a bit bored. Regards.--Stefanomencarelli 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The editor in question appeared on en.Wikipedia sites late in July 2007 and began to contribute to aviation articles at that point after setting up a home page. His first contributions were welcomed and an introductory message was left on his home page. My comment was: "Welcome to the aviation side of Wikipedia. As you are not a native English speaker, there will need to be some help in editing for readability in grammar. As well, please note that you do need to refer to reference sources to 'back up' submissions. Please continue to contribute but be aware that other editors will help you in framing the articles in an encyclopedic manner." All my exchanges with the aforementioned editor have been similar in nature and are intended to provide friendly and collaborative assistance to a newcomer.
Until recently and except for a few occasions, there were no responses to any questions or notes directed to the editor. Some of the main concerns about the submissions revolved around a rudimentary grasp of English which is entirely understandable and a number of editors have attempted to assist in revising text in terms of spelling, grammar and syntax errors. The other concerns were more fundamental and involved "textdumping" large amounts of material from relatively obscure Italian magazines (characterized by another Italian editor as childrens' magazines), use of original research (which the editor forcefully defended on policy talk pages) and a combative, abusive style in responding to suggestions, corrections or other editor's revisions. This last concern developed into editwarring with editors and led to a number of blocks of various lengths from admins who were observing the actions. After a brief return to It.Wiki where the editor had been blocked for three months, he was again blocked for an indefinite period for similar behaviour.
In order to address some of the concerns, notwithstanding the genuine efforts that were made to add to the en.wiki (I supported an award to the editor to recognize his contributions), an effort to enlist other experienced editors was initiated. It began with a request placed on the aviation project page (an area where most of the editor's submissions appeared) and a group of editors responded by monitoring the large numbers of submissions and assisting with the revisions required. I also helped in that process until lately when I simply felt overwhelmed by the daily massive textdumps and merely marked articles for others with tags.
Although the actions taken by editors and admins to improve articles have been an ongoing process, there still appears to be very little in the way of actual changes in the submissions. Major efforts by numerous parties to improve use of grammar, referencing and even article formats have not been successful and the editor is still unable to contribute in a meaningful way without resorting to attacks on others whenever his edits are challenged in any manner. Others have also noted that their edits have often been reverted to incorrect spellings, grammar and syntax, and edits continue to appear in multiple submissions without referring to the talk page whenever major changes are initiated. After literally a thousand contributions in en.wiki, not one reference citation has ever been correctly written or formatted despite countless revisions that have "pointed the way" to an acceptable standard of bibliographical referencing.
Editwarring is still a concern and after advice from admins as to remedies, an admin suggested that large batches of material should appear first on article talk pages and then be transferred to the main body. Although this suggestion was at times ignored, it seemed a reasonable compromise and made it easier to see the entire contribution at one time. Despite this current request for arbitration, the editor in question has continued editwarring with other editors even while this process is being considered. A clear edit history is still available of all contacts and changes, and although two editors have been named, there are numerous other editors and admins who have tried to provide assistance in what was initially perceived as a "learning curve" exercise. These efforts were most often rebuffed as presumptuous and ill-informed and a wide range of comments directed to individual members' talk/discussion pages is the evidence of this reaction to well-meaning criticism or advice. I have concluded that the editor's poor understanding of the English language along with its extensive nuances and subtleties has led to a great deal of misunderstanding, however, many of the responses were accusatory and out-of-proportion. Personally, I do not react to "character attacks" and choose to use a "water off the duck's back" approach to singular and negative statements. The new demand for apologies for my actions regarding the editor's work wherein each edit was always supported by an edit comment and often an extensive discourse in the related talk pages, is another example of the editor's fundamental lack of understanding of the process of editing.
I welcome other's opinions, comments and advice in what has become a daily adventure. My primary interest is in improving Wikipedia aviation articles of historical importance and I am willing to work with anyone in this venture. FWIW Bzuk 12:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC).
Note, this is the actual record of edits made by the editor in question:
FWIW Bzuk 15:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC).
I am uninvolved as far as not being named in this, but actually have been quite involved in the situation, primarily as an admin asked by BillCJ to intervene in a difficult situation. Dealing with Stefano can be extremely frustrating (and it is pretty self-evident to me why he was ulitmately banned from the Italian Wikipedia), because of his limited English, and his insistence on dumping large amounts of detailed, text, most of which I suspect is an English translation of copyrighted Italian text, and his unwillingness to work with the rather dedicated editors involved in WP:AIR. I am surprised that he has brought this matter here, because it was my understanding that an agreement had been worked out, whereby instead of blasting a large chunk of barely-intelligeble text into an article, he would post it on a talk page or sandbox and work with editors to get it polished before posting it into an article. I am, quite frankly, disappointed that he hasn't allowed this process to develop and mature. What's more concerning to me is that Stefano has recently stepped up his personal attacks on other editors. Myself and another admin have been removing those, and I'm on the verge of escalating the warnings to Stefano, and if he doesn't back off on his attacks on other editors, initiating a short term block. Unfortunately, there is a real problem, his very poor English, and when well-meaning editors try to get involved, he goes into a poor-me, wikipedia-is-corrupt attitude, and has no patience with editors who genuinely want to help. I would suggest to the Committee that they advise Stefano to continue to try to work within the framework of the agreement already in place. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Note, I am NOT User:BillBC, whom Stefanomencarelli contineus to mistake for me me in his posts. Please note he is refrreing to BillCJ, not BillBC, in those posts.
THere is not much to add to what BZuk has written in his description of the problems here. When I first noticed his textdumps, what concerned me were the vast amounts of well-written text that was being added, which contrasted with his very-poor written English in his posts. WHenever large amounts of text is added without sourcing, I interpret WP:ATTR to require us to remove such sections until adequate reliable sources can be provided. So I removed the sections, with the edit summary that it was a possible copyvio. Since that point, Stefanomencarelli has been increasingly hostile towards me, and even above proclaims his innocence in the matter. However, the contributor must prove that his contributions are not copyvios when so requested, not the other way around, per WP:ATTR. I also get the impression that Stefanomencarelli does not understand how copyright laws and plagarism guidelines work. Even when I use PD material, such as Greg Goebel's Vectorsite, I still cite the soure, and rewrite it in my own words were I can. I don't think that Stefanomencarelli is even aware that material from copyrighted sources MUST be rewritten in one's own words, and that the failure to do so is at least plagirism, and at most a copyvio.
After the first few weeks of interaction, several editors, including a few Italian-fluent ones, found out that Stefanomencarelli had been blocked/banned for 3 months for the VERY same type of problems we have recorded here, with the possible exception of the Language issue. I'm assuming his Italian is pretty good, but if he was using English sources there, the translation may have still led to readability problems there. From that point on I privately supported a ban here, as he was exhibiting the same type of uncivil behavior here.
For a time, I simply tried to stay away from the articles he was editing, but as he continued to expand his area of damage, I felt that I could no longer stand by while he does such damage to Wikipeida, even if it was all in good faith. My response at that point was to simply revert his addition, as his initial textdumps were causing hours of work for other editors to clean up. At that point, AKRadecki and John stepped in, and tried to reason with him, but these attempts were less than successful, as recounted above.
It is my belief that after three long months of Stefanomencarelli's contributions to Wikipedia, he has proven his inability to get along with others here, and does not try to abide by the most basic of Wiki's Contribution Policies. This has nothing to do with the fact that he is not a native speaker of English, nor that he is not from a primarily-English country, especially since most of these problems were present in the Italian Wikipedia, where the language should not be a problem.
- BillCJ 17:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- BillCJ 17:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
1) Editors on Wikipedia are expected to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project in-line with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming. However, as oft-quoted from Jimmy Wales, "our social policies are not a suicide pact".
2) Editors on Wikipedia are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and etiquette.
3) Editors on Wikipedia who are non-native speakers should not a priori be considered inferior contributors, but should be assessed on the merits of their input. Those who have poor skills in English should be helped to improve the project as much as is practical.
4) The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
1) Stefanomencarelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), though acting in good faith, has been unable to refrain from making edits that are a net detriment to the project; he remains unwilling to work constructively with other editors ([6]), and frequently engages in incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ([7]).
1) Stefanomencarelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.