Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses as short as possible; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
[edit] Evidence presented by DarkFalls
[edit] DIREKTOR and Giovanni Giove had engaged in edit warring
In many different articles, Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR have engaged in edit warring and had broken 3RR many times. This is shown in the histories.
[edit] {Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
[edit] Evidence presented by Kubura
Note: Giovanni Giove's disruptive edits are examples of more things.
[edit] Case: article Jakov Mikalja
All edits are from 2007.
[edit] Giovanni Giove's imposive approach/resistance to discussion
Diffs are from the Talk:Jakov Mikalja.
In total, from the creation of the talkpage of Jakov Mikalja article, out of 131 edit, Giove made 10 (I've misstyped: there were 30 edits, out of which 16 were "proper" messages).
User:Giovanni Giove behaves with "imposive" approach, never with "I'll explain you" approach. [6] (on 24 May, 11:37) and [7] (on 24 May, 11:43). These were his first two edits (related to same message). In latter, he ignores the link to scanned page of original document ("most of all Illyric does not coincide with Croatian" - he got the link on Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik on [8], on 8 May, 06:49).
User:Giovanni Giove shows heavy resistance to discussion. Behaves like an apsolutist monarch: [9] (on 24 May, 11:37, his first edit): "Micalgli himself declared to be Italian. End of discussion. All other claims are totally sourced." He didn't gave us external links on the talkpage (we had to search in the article).
He didn't discussed the source (and its content) with us.
He finds himself "too much above" others, he declares something "totally sourced" (then what are the references and first-hand sources that others gave?).
He just said: "end of discussion, claims are sourced".
Here's a short history of events from the last 2 months of editing on article and talkpage of Jakov Mikalja. The events are illustrative about Giove's behaviour.
Text lines, that are "little inside" (4 ;nbsp), are from talkpages.
Article edits are immediately from the left.
In order to shorten this, few edits are dropped: mostly minor edits and edits not directly related with persons concerned.
6 July, 06:13. On the Talk:Jakov Mikalja, I remind the user:Giovanni Giove to the fact that he gave Italian source given (RAI, Italian national TV), which speaks contrary to Giove's POV-attitudes. [10].
8 July, 12:53. Talkpage. On user:Plantago's request [[11] ], I translate it into English.
8 July, 13:42, Talkpage. Giove adds tag "controversial". Nothing else.[12]
9 July, 08:50. Talkpage. I explicitly ask [13] Giovanni Giove to explain the fact, that the site of Italian national TV, contradicts to his claims (now Giove doesn't have excuse of "Croatian nationalist sources").
After that, Giove never wrote anything on the talkpage. Never.
But, on the article page, he continued to edit after that, ignoring discussion my (and other users') attempts on the talkpage.
8 July, 13:42, User talk:Giovanni Giove. I warn Giove for the fourth time [14] about his ignorant behaviour, pointing again to the fact that he avoids discussion and ignores the sources, that others provided (now even the Italian ones, because Giove finds Croatian not worthy).
9 July, 11:52. Article page, few hours after my explicite requirement for explanation, Giove removes adjective "Croat" [15], although Italian site speaks contrary. Giove ignores the discussion on the heated topic.
9 July, 13:40. User:No.13 reverts to Plantago's version.
10 July, 06:00. Talkpage. I abstain from editing on the article. I remind Giove that he didn't explain his changes.[16].
10 July, 06:15. Talkpage. I remind him about his ignorance [17].
23 July, 13:01, I reedit the page, and point Giove to see the talk page (in the comment)[18].
23 July, 13:05. Talkpage. My message, new section "My changes" [19], where I explain my moves that I did ("I've asked few times opponent Giove to give his explanations, which he didn't give in reasonable time. So I changed the disputed lines....".
23 July, 13:06. Talkpage. I give more explanations. [20].
29 July, 16:57, Giove reverts to its POV-version, with the comment "Rvv pushing POV (no time for other things" [21].
29 July, 18:14, No.13 reverts, and in 18:49, gives his "neutral" version.
29 July, 23:38, out of nowhere, appears user:PetriKrohn, and reverts to Giove's version [22], without any explanation on the talkpage (he engaged in the edit war, although he had never discussed on the topic. Comment: restored version by User:Giovanni Giove - reverted etnic POV-pushing).
30 July, 06:35, No.13 reverts.
30 July, 11:10, I make revert to my version, pointing to the sources and explanations on the talkpage, and that noone gave counterarguments [23].
1 Aug, 09:28, Special:Contributions/151.33.93.104 (user "Leo" or user:PIO??) reverts to Giove's version.
1 Aug, 12:48. User:No.13 reverts.
11 Aug, 17:57, I reedit to my version [24].
12 Aug, 08:53. Giove reverts to his POV-version [25].
18 Aug, 12:56, DIREKTOR reverts Giove's edit [26].
27 Aug, 14:08, Giove reverts to his POV-version [27]. Comment was:"m (Rv all the edits by banned user No.13 (and Kubura))".
27 Aug, 14:38. Zmaj reverts Giove's edit. Comment:"(rv back - user Giovanni Giove reverted the edits of a total of 8 editors)".
27 Aug, 14:43, Giove edits to his POV-version [28], with comment:" (Rvv (false: as a matter of fact, just Plantago editedm I will reinsert his edits))".
27 Aug, 15:08, user:89.172.233.120, removes big part of Giove's changes.
27 Aug, 15:35, Giove reverts to his POV-version [29], with comment: "rv edit by banned user:Afrika paprika)".
27 Aug, 15:43, user:89.172.192.243, removes big part of Giove's changes.
27 Aug, 16:07, Giove reverts to his POV-version [30].Comment:"Rvv last edit (he was a banned user))".
27 Aug, 16:10, user:89.172.224.72 , removes big part of Giove's changes. Comment:"(rv, edits made by known community disruptor)".
27 Aug, 16:31, Giove reverts to his POV-version [31].Comment:"m (Rvv last edit ( banned [[user|Afrika_paprika))".
27 Aug, 16:34, user:DalmatinoA , reverts big part of Giove's changes. Comment: "(reverting to a community established version)".
28 Aug, 07:06. Talkpage. I try to explain some things (Mikalja's name issue). [32].
28 Aug, 08:06. Talkpage. I warn Giove about his behaviour, about the previous discussions regarding language name. [33].
28 Aug, 10:20, Giove reverts to his POV-version , comment:"again", [34].
28 Aug, 15:14. Talkpage. I remind Giove about previously given references on the talkpage of Republic of Dubrovnik, almost 5 (five months before), on 5 Apr. [35].
28 Aug, 15:30. Talkpage. I remind Giove that he had never read what I've written, reminding him about time passed from the message. [36].
28 Aug, 16:55 and 16:56, user:89.172.198.80, reverts big part of Giove's changes, comment:"reverting to community established version plus update with recent kubura's remark on talk page)"
28 Aug, 18:25, Giove reverts to his POV-version. [37]. Comment:"Rvv edit by banned user:Afrika paprika)".
28 Aug, 19:03, Alison protects the page.
As you see, Giovanni Giove has engaged in the edit war, fiercely defending its POV-version, without discussing its attitudes on the talkpage.
I remind honorable arbitrators, that Giovanni Giove blatantly resisted to discussion, although he was explicitly asked for explanation.
I draw your attention to the fact, that besides edit-warring, Giovanni Giove is heavy ignorer. In this example, from my invitation on the talkpage till the article protection, from 9 July to 28 Aug, passed 1 month and 19 days, or 49 days. Giovanni Giove has never responded.
It was impossible to reach any consensus with him.
Any attempt to prove him something failed.
[edit] Giovanni Giove disrespects opponents
[38] 24th June, 19:25. "Now the article is totally referencied. Your personal opinions about the therm 'serbocroatian' are meaningless here".
[39], 21 Sep, 11:25. Giove's comment:Rv Kubura's unsourced POV. Here's my "unsourced POV" (academy library) on that same talkpage (House of Gradić), from 45 days before, from 6 Aug, 12:20. [40]. It was the text I gave on talkpage of Rep. of Dubrovnik on 22 March, 13:27 (six months before) [41], because Giove doesn't read the talkpages. Article where he should know the content, because we had disagreents there.
[42], on this page, on 14:21, 1st Oct, Giove wrote "For now I have no time to commente the mostly meaningless clain by Zem. and Kubura".
[edit] Giovanni Giove's disruptive behaviour
An user, user:No.13, gave explanation on the talkpage, why has he reverted Giove's changes. Giove deleted the whole explanation and all further discussion. [43], on 28 Aug, 10:44.
Reminder: talkpages are made for explanations of reverts.
Giove deleted the original title of the work [44], on 9 Apr.
[edit] Giovanni Giove plays dumb
(I have to use this expression, unfortunately; sorry)
After I gave to user:Giovanni Giove some explanations/tried to discuss [45] (5 Apr, 12:38) and [46], (8 Apr, 19:28). In his 3rd edit on the talkpage, [47] (9 Apr, 22:44), Giovanni Giove plays dumb:"It's not possible to understand what you want to show with the above quotations".
Still, after his playing dumb, I've tried to explain him in the very next message [48] (12 Apr, 13:39): "The article should be named Jakov Mikalja. Also, I supposed which questions might arose, so I've intercepted them".
Blatant ignorance of references on the talkpage. He wrote here (section Controversy) on 24 May "Not only this last name is not historically deprived of fundaments (being just a recent translation of Giacomo Micaglia". Giove lied. On the talkpage, I gave him (49 days before) reference to library of Philosophic faculty in Zagreb, on 5 Apr, 12:38 [49].
[50] on 26 May. He removed the tag "original research" (that refered to the section "controversy"), with comment "per talk". His contributions on the talkpage is described here.
[edit] To investigate: A sockpuppet
At that time, appeared a user:RomanoDD, that had similar edit patterns (somewhere the same as user:Giovanni Giove). Sockpuppet for evasion of 3RR rule or a tool for edit-warring?
See his edits. First edit [51] from 22 Apr 15:45, second edit, [52], from 22 Apr, 21:54, third edit, [53], from 24 Apr, 10:37, fourth edit [54] from 25 Apr, 18:56 (comment was: where you see Croatian???? It is written Ilic dictionary. Please see picture and abandon POV pushing), fifth edit [55] from 26 Apr, 23:59 (comment was: Did you see. It is Slovinski or Iliric dictionary. It is not Croatian).
Very same "not knowing" of Croatian dialects, same as Giove). Insisting of denying "Croatian" or lowering the "share" of Croatian, by adding "Serbo-". Some parts from these edits are: "...Serbocroatian dialects were spoken in this country: the Štokavian (Štokavski) and the Chakavian (čakavski). He also removed adjective "Croatian" and replaced it with "Illyric", even removing the reference note (!).
[edit] False accusations
28 Aug, at 16:07, he wrote on WP:RfARB (this topic!) that I, Kubura, deny the presence of the Italians in all Dalmatia. [56].
He lies. It's the opposite. I confirmed the presence of Italians, e.g. here [57] on 16 July at 06:21, two months before his accusation, on the talkpage where he recently (at that time "recently", 10 Aug) also contributed a lot, later I gave more examples on 28 Aug [58], [59].
Giove doesn't read opponents' edits, or ignores them.
[edit] Anti-Croat attitude
Giove distorts and misrepresents data and/or writes blatant lies.
[60] on this RfARB, from 30 Aug 2007, 18:40?
"You deny all the Croatian war crime! ... and yes, you could discusse why and where before the 1840s, the therm Croat was not applied to the present day Croat nation"
Giove's message on my talkpage on it.wiki [61].
I gave you the translation here [62], as well as proving wrong of Giove's message above (war crimes issue). But, Giove ignores or doesn't read what opponents write.
The insulting content says it everything for itself (denying someone's nation and nation's history). Kubura 19:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[63] from 24 may. Comment "(Illyric is different from Croatian)". Despite the arguments on the talkpage of Jakov Mikalja and Rep. of Dubrovnik (with scanned page of the original historical document, where the author concerned, Mikalja, in dictionary says "Illyricus=Hrvat").
[edit] Giove deletes and/or diminuates the "share" of Croats
[64]. 22:43, 9 April 2007 .
Vandalising of article, by deleting the original title of the work [65]. 22:56, 9 April 2007 There's more.
He removed Croatian to "Serbocroatian" [66], on 9 May.
Obsessive hateridge towards Croatian. [67] on 24 May. See the part "controversy" (ignoring the references from the talkpage).
Obsessive removing of anything related to Croats [68] on 26 May. (comment: "again Croat").
on 24 May. Despite I gave him links (see "Giove plays dumb").
[edit] Giove deleting "Croat--", Italianizing of Croat names, toponyms
Deleting the original title of the work, that author wrote in Croatian [69], on 9 Apr. As we see, that wasn't done accidentally.
I warned him about that on his behaviour on the talkpage [70] on 12 Apr, 14:01.
. He repeated that [71] on 12 Apr, 21:50. Comment was:"Deleting usual Kubura's POV" (this is also Giove's disrespect to other users).
[72] on 18 Apr. Note: on the talkpage, I gave him references (see section here, above "Giove plays dumb").
RomanoDD's edits followed (see section above). And again [73] on 9 May. [74] on 24 May (Giove's comment:Rv vandalisms of Kubura and Afrika Paprika and other unsourced edits) and [75] on 24 May. [76] on 26 May (Giove's comment:Rv Afrika Paprika's vandalism+ It was NOT a Croatian dic. and this is quite clear just reading the article), [77] on 26 May , [78] on 26 May , [79] on 26 May , [80] on 26 May, [81] on 27 May.
Then the user Aldux engaged in that edit war [82] on 27 May, and later protected the page [83] on 27 May, with Giove's POV version presented (with removed original title in Croatian and all references to Croat, Croatian...).
In these edits, Giove removed all references to "Croat, Croatian".
Article Republic of Dubrovnik is full of that examples (toponyms especially). Diffs to follow.
[edit] Attempts to communicate directly
Besides all my (and other users) attempts to communicate/discuss with him on the article talkpages, I also tried to communicate with him directly.
10 Aug 2006, 09:56 (section "di Gozze deleted")[84].
Section "Why such words?"). A "must see". Dossier for itself. Do I have to copy it here, or it's enough to leave a diff?. I've intentionally made it as material for later use in RfARB.
Explanations and explicit warnings on his behaviour.
26 June at 13:56. [85], 29 June at 13:22.[86], 3 July at 08:36.[87], 9 July at 09:05.[88].
Here, on Giove's talkpage, I also tried to communicate with user:Brunodam, calling him to discuss on article talkpages, on 18 July in 09:07 [89].
There's more.
[edit] Brunodam's non-neutrality
On the WP:RfARB, 29 Aug 2007 02:30, "...with...aim to "increase" (...."create") the Cro. and Serb presence in the cult. history of Dalmatia, that otherwise would be practically only Italian/Venetian until the 1st half of the 19th c.". [90].
That's ignoring of cult.history of small peoples. Overexaggeration with Italian cult. influence.
Obvious ignorance of data I provided on Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik. See sections where HAZU (national academy!) is mentioned, e.g. sections title, Illyrian language, Croathood of Dubrovnik and translations...
Point with mouse over the links, they lead to library.hazu.hr (or to knjiznica.hazu.hr; knjižnica=library), to catalogue search result and to scans in .jpg format of orig. docs.
[edit] Comparative table of events
Compared history of editing.
On history of Talk:Jakov Mikalja[91],from the beginning of 4 Apr till 28 Aug. 131 edit. Giovanni Giove made alltogether 30 edits. (I'll refine his "corrections" later).
285 edits from 4 Apr till 28 Aug. Giove made 99 edits from 4 Apr.
From the very beginning, 27 May 2006 till last edit, 8 Sep 2007, there were 324 edits. Giove made 118. See history of article Jakov Mikalja [92].
I give this comparison from 4 Apr, because that day the talkpage was started for this article. Giove made 99 edits on article and 30 on talkpage. 16 of them are "proper", "whole" messages. Content of these say for themselves. Kubura 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence presented by Zenanarh
[edit] Giovanni Giove and communication
Best seen by simple oversee of Zadar article history [93] and older... - long edit warring with everybody. In the same time he is absent on Talk:Zadar [94] and older...
Building an article around his not very usual Italian source History of Zara(italian) [95].htm resulted in several different versions of Italian city of Zadar "whatever it means". He doesn't see other people's evidences and sources, reacts by tactical sockpupetry accusation [96], his fuel seems to be an opponent's 3RR - seen everywhere in his contributions
[edit] Giovanni Giove and sources
After long edit warring first unsuccesful RFC was started [97]. In the same time G.G. was quickly rearranging the article and linked few very selective sentences from Britanica to cover the rest. Mixed with his root source and text from other on line encyclopedia. It was all well cutted, mixed, balanced through 36 edits, after RFC had already started [98], [99]. All history of Zadar became just evidence of his political attitude whatever it is. In the same time real history of Zadar have dissapeared. Now you can still read in history sections a half POV history of all region which is there to prove somebody's POV history of the city. In the same time rich history of the city is tiny. Unfortunatelly it's not there. Not in Zadar article.
First RFC was about using the name of the city. He was relying on (→Estabilshed Wikipedia's rule for historical names) but however Zadar was always called Zara in his edits, from pre-history until almost now. Maybe he didn't see Talk:Zadar?
[edit] Possible agreement
For now I have no time to commente the mostly meaningless clain by Zem. and Kubura. Anyway me and DIREKTOR both agree that is better to reach an agreemnt. If the moderators agree we can discuss about this topic. I wait for comments.Giovanni Giove 14:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence presented by Giovanni Giove
[edit] Sources deletions by DIREKTOR
DIREKTOR and Zenanarh want to impose the theory about the Croaticity of Marco Polo in the relative article (see also: talk:Marco Polo). I've posted some lines, to show that Marco Polo is self declaring "Venitian", but the sources were deleted by DIREKTOR, see [100].--Giovanni Giove 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
