Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. 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 the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks 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.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Nimbus227

[edit] New users could be discouraged from participating in articles edited by Stefanomencarelli

I have been an editor on Wikipedia for only three weeks experiencing the low of a new article Lockheed XF-104 being nominated for AfD, then the high two days later of it being a DYK on the front page. My specialist area of interest is the Lockheed F-104 where I quickly noticed the editing conflicts and respectfully added some advice/comments of my own, I received replies that I felt were aggressive even if they were not intended to be. The Aeritalia F-104S article is in dire need of editing, though to be fair it has just been created from a previous article that detailed Italian F-104 service in general. I could clean this article very quickly but am very reluctant to do so for fear of having to justify every edit (which goes against the 'being bold' principle). I have received advice, encouragement and praise for my efforts from other editors including the two parties named here (BillCJ and Bzuk) and quickly realised that discussion and editing in other aviation articles was more straightforward. I speak German fairly well and am an English translator for the F-40 series of aviation books [1] however I would not even attempt to contribute to Wiki.de knowing that someone would probably have to correct my inevitable grammar or spelling mistakes. I would be willing to help with correction of Stefanomencarreli's submissions if they were short enough (and factually accurate) but I do know how long that process can take and understand completely that the only way to correct the articles he has contributed to is to revert even if it does mean that new factually correct information is omitted. His references have been called in to question, I have only one Italian language book on the F-104 (by the author Nico Sgarlato), it is heavily illustrated but the information in it appears to be correct. The point has been raised that readers may well not have access to the book references given. I also understand that using websites as primary references is not always WP policy where it appears that Stefanomencarreli does not accept this ruling. I personally hope that the situation improves soon. Apologies if I have not linked user names etc. correctly.


[edit] Evidence presented by Bzuk

[edit] Edit warring examples

Stefanomencarelli engages in edit warring which began shortly after his first submission to the article Macchi C.202 [2] with a comment placed on my talk page in response to reverting a large amount of text with unsupported information. My comments: [3]. [4]. The editor responded by replacing all the deleted text:[5] and adding nine more large submissions. Editors including myself gradually undertook revisions to this and other edits.

I asked for some assistance from other editors by posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft a "Request for help in Macchi MC.200 and Macchi MC.205: A new editor, Stefanomencarelli has started to do some editing, concentrating on Italian subjects. He seems to have a good grasp of the subject but not such a good grasp on English grammar. No problem here but there is also some sketchy knowledge about the normal writing/editing/referencing that needs to take place. I will help as much as I can but I would encourage other editors to look over the articles every so often and also help his contributions. FWIW Bzuk 02:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)." [6] In my initial contacts, I also wrote an enlarged "notes on editing" that I posted on the editor's talk page, including this explanation: "Good morning, Stephan (sic). In response, if you check the edit, that is not my statement but yours. All I do is "massage" in the case of submissions that are not mine. I am not "re-writing" your submissions, my and other editors' work is in the area of editing. I am an editor by trade and understand the need for the original "voice" to be heard. All editors merely assist the process but are not the originators. We touch up, but do not do the painting ourselves. You are Michelangelo, I am the fellow that dusts the statue and makes sure the light shines on it. (BTW, there seems to be a gap in the Reggiane lineage. I could not find an article on the Reggiane Re.2002 Falco II. Now that would be an interesting project for you to tackle.) FWIW |:¬∆ Bzuk 13:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)."[7]

When no response was made other than in edits or article talk pages setting forth a voluminous and elaborate reasoning behind the original posting, I wrote to the editor again: "Stefan, working in wikipedia is much like kindergarten. The rules are simple, play nice, help each other, share. These are the only things that matter. I did not want you to think that there is someone looking over your shoulder. I can help in grammar and other editing but I thought more editors would make the task easier. I find your submissions are very interesting and bring forth a new look at the Italian wartime subjects. Keep it up. Bzuk 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)."[8]

Although Italian aircraft was certainly not my specialty, I found it interesting to research the topics and contribute to the edits, joining a large group of dedicated and experienced editors who devoted considerable time to grammar and other stylistic revisions: Red Sunset, Nigel Ish, Snowmanradio, Binksternet, Denis, Dirk P Broer, MoRsE, Attilios, Piotr Mikołajski, EH101, MilborneOne, T96 grh, Fnlayson, BillCJ, Akradecki, Grant65, Maury Markowitz, John and countless others; all of whom had experienced examples of edit warring despite their clear intention to help improve the articles.

Throughout, Stefanomencarelli's "heated" words on talk pages led to blocks for incivility. Email contact was made in order to not inflame arguments on either of our talk pages. In one instance, I tried to intercede by posting to his talk page, but it was too late. My comment: "Stefano, The note that was posted on your page was not from BillCJ. It was a sockpuppet of a banned editor who has been posting this message in an effort to get BillCJ banned. Please re-read the comments with this in mind. This sockpuppet has created a mess of trouble all day long and has been blocked but not before this message was posted on your page. FWIW Bzuk 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)." The editor was set up by Opuscalgary who tried to incite an edit war, also Tabletop who was mildly poking fun at the editor's use of English and by 68.244.198.204, one of numerous sockpuppets of Wikzilla who was maliciously trying to provoke the editor and continues to set up Stefanomencarelli.

From these responses to spammed attacks, it is evident that language barriers and understanding the complex nuances of discussions is a severe limitation. He simply "did not get it" that he was being set up by trolls and intemperate reactions to editors show a lack of understanding. When MoRsE approached me with the idea of how to show the editor that his contributions were valued, I agreed to recommend an award to recognize his significant work in en.wikiedia. The editor chose to read into this a validation for his sometimes questionable actions including little concern for consensus decisions [9], a belief that original research should be accepted [10], claim that his resources should be accepted without question [11], a requirement that he solely edit [12] and a vociferous defence including being uncivil and laying personal attacks.

From his recent comments during this arbitration, it is clear that this editor launched the action believing that administrator abuses were taking place; although he named two editors, numerous administrators have been involved: MoRsE, rlandmann, Maury Markowitz, Akradecki, Grant65, John and J.smith. The editor in question either misunderstood the process or used it to exact retribution as well as an affirmation of his editing style/use of references. After sifting out content issues, which should be deliberated on relevant discussion pages, the remaining arguments are merely rebuttals of the multiple instances of lack of cooperation, incivility and personal attacks, the primary concerns many editors/admins have identified. Although language issues are still the core of the problem, an underlying bombastic and vituperative manner is evident throughout correspondence, edit summaries and discussions. He also continues to see conspiracies behind every action and acts irrationally to make baseless charges; see: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18].

[edit] Personal attacks

Stefanomencarelli engages in personal attacks including: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], this, which contained a particularly offensive racial slur, [59], [60], [61], [62], [63] [64].

[edit] Evidence presented by Stefanomencarelli

[edit] Basically:Bzuk and BillCJ

(Actually, while writing i am seeing 'For who bell is ringing', the movie based on Hemingway opera) I don't really need to place here edit differences and so on. Bzuk has already did the most of the work. He obviousely calls for personal attacks any discussion we had about a lot of arguments, and this not couver the right and the wrong.

Basically, all Bzuk had done was to roll-back, filling with 'citation needed', 'too errors' and a lot of discussion about the 'data reliability'. I don't say that he cannot do it, but let's get a look about the stuff. I went here, to work in a foreigner language that i knew enough for reading and forum discussions, but not so well for editing. I do not say that i wrote well, not even about the 'source reliability' is not an issue. What 'disturbed' me was the mere reverting of stuff even longer than 10kb, that, among source research and editing taken me several hours of work.

At limit, it could had been better to post the removed stuff in the discussion page, one of the 'suggestions' often used for debated materials. It never happened, and when in B-50 [[65]] and CF-104 [[66]]page much material was reverted (all i posted) i taken the initiative to post it in the talk. I did not liked at all this manners, regardless of how justificate they could be seen. BillCJ, as example, came and roll-back, without explanation. Strange manners in a 'collaborative' ency. This is also psychologically amusing. Wiki not request perfection, and i do not make purposely errors in writing. To see my work nullified by other's intransigence and then see they scream for personal attacks looks to me not exactly wikilove.

So what's the point to act so? Savoia-Marchetti series ,as example, was not improved, at the end of editing process?

Apart early problems, more and more apparently 'solved', latter developments with BillCJ 'draconian' actions raised the tension. I protested vehemently, but without success, usually not even answered. Someone 'suggested' to me to post the stuff in discussion page to be 'reworked'. It was so: CF-104, B-50, now G.91 are still waiting for since many weeks ago, and nobody cared to honour his part in this un-official agreement.. What's the point, mp it's still not 'reviewed'? My kind censors could to take attention to these pages, or it's just an excuse to forbid me to edit at all in the main? If it's not for grammar it's POV, or it's source issues, or it is finally for 'suspect copyviols' (yes, when i manage to write better than the usual, and sometimes happens, 'it's copyviol'). I'm starting to get affected by paranoia, or someone else is so affected?

The worst, that provoked me beyhound tollerance was the stuff on EH101 and F-86. In those pages, you can see by cronology, i just added very tiny contributions. One minute lather EH101 contr was deleted. F-86F datas were sourced and reasonably (I not say that F-86 could climb on the Moon) 'sized', but not, Bzuk has started a sort of edit-war trying to delete these 'unsourced datas'. I am talking of 700 bites contr., with one written and two internet references. But not, it's seen as 'heretical attempt' to ruin wikipedia. To be honest, i contributed to these pages for two reasons. One, it was due to genuine will to help the pages, but the other coin's face was to test the 'tolerance' of my 'guardians'. Promptly arrived to kill my contrs. And they were the usual, Bill and Bzuk.

I still must understand why they can actually forbid to me to edit, while i already made a lot of page contrs and made a job enough good to have a barnstar by MorSe. What's the final benefit for wiki?

And what's the good faith for Bzuk? Using mail posts is arguably a violation of privacy, and legal issues apart, it's looking a bit 'unloyal' to me. Am i mistake something?

Another serious lack of 'good faith': Why Bzuk adds the edit-contributions in october with even day avg? He should know that thi is due also to hoverhaul the articles. Is it because he is want to show 'that i am becaming more and more unsupportable'?

Moreover, Bzuk forget that for my 'bold statements' i was punished with two block, so is uncourrect that there was no 'reaction'. I payed for my bolding when necessary.

Finally, i am sometimes still accused to make copyviols or not to know 'what copyviol is'. This is a very amusing thing to me, because:

  • 1-it's false
  • 2-I don't need it


To me, Bzuk and Bill abuses of 'editing freedom' with persecutory actions against myself. They are not even admins, AFAIK. In normal cases, this must be called trolling, vandalizing etc. But not in my case, why?

Strangely enough, let me ends, guys like Red Sunset, Tabletop and MoRSe have contribued to 'improve' my articles, but none of them was ever attacked by the monster known as Stefanomencarelli. Perhaps this displays that someone is capable to cooperate with wise ness and without an axe at the hands, and obtain results that a bombing campaing is too raw instrument to obtain? My will to contribue in wiki falls day by day, spoiled by these discussions. So i made this segnalation. I could not really make nothing if even few datas are debated and deleted with an almost fanatic approach. Why i should not see an unjustified personal attack, even if not declared, to my work in wiki?

[edit] Nimbus

I frankly speaking not understand what you have to do with me. I discuss with you one time only. I also encouraged you to edit in CF-104. I dunno in what measure i 'discourage' newcomers to edit, but surely i did not rollbacked anyone as i remember. Bzuk and Bill Rbs are not 'discouraging newcomers' while i 'discourage them' just because i want discuss their (sometimes huge) errors?

[edit] John

Strangely enough, while you are saying that my english is barely understandable i can understand well you.

And confirm some things said to you:

  • In short: i am not too pleased to see that, every time i discuss with someone, you arrive and advertize or block me. If you want to make PR with myself you can do it better. I do apreciate the discussions peer-to peer, rather than shoot the dog."

What's wrong with this? It's just what happened all the time.

  • CORRECTIONS are liked. Rollbacking instantaneusly are not. Not talk about 'collaboration' when censorship is the only way someone has to act

I can confirm this as well. In B-50, even if i wrote lather an 'improved' modific: I made some improvements i hope apprecied, i hope...)

47 minutes later, another roll-back happened (when it's enough, it's enough). So tell me if this is really shoot the dog.

As for aircraft contributions:

  • first, i made already almost all the things i wanted to do, so your statement falls in the outer space vacuum. If i have not already couvered almost all italian aircrafts available you could be right, state this now is a bit ..humouristic.
  • Second: Akradeki and others seemed to agree to 'help me'. Where are they now? I respected the 'agreement', but nobody 'hoverhauled' my contrs, that still waits in the talks. Is it a 'right' thing? Aimed to what? To let me loose interest for editing?

Agreements are not possible if only one part is obliged to respect them. And i don't like wiki.'Gaza strips' and 'security walls', nor be considered a 'public enemy' just because i am trying to collaborate in this grate encyclopedia.

  • Third, there are also other sectors of wikipedia in which i collaborated, and in NOBODY OF THEM i found so arrogance, intolerance and so on like in aviation project. I can made my contr. almost not disturbed in several other sectors, and nobody has sickened me like wiki.aviators. Just the same with wiki.it: I had more trouble there with aviation, than all artillery (100 articles)-ship( 400)-missiles(240)-veicles(200), cinema and animals put all together. Is it something that have to do with wiki.aviation fans? I'd say yes, it is.

Finally, John, i cannot really understand why you comes always exactly after my posts every time i discuss with others. It's a bit.. 'strange'.

[edit] EH101

For who don't know mr. EH101, he is one of the *main* causes that led to my ban in wiki, and block in september, thank to his continous accusations and provokations.

All started because i dared to criticize the A.129 Mangusta and praised AH-64 Apache. Suddently he went outside and started to make a 'opinion campaing' against me or my work. I did not liked, but this was just the beginning. Since last march, accuses of every kind occourred by him.

Last september, as example,[67], he slandeded me in wiki.it with a 'reconstruction' of how i was awarded with Morse medal: i had this medal 'only after two bans', to 'calm down me'. MORSE medal was sent to me on 27 August, while blocks (and not bans) occourred before and after. And he is not in the position to decide why i had this award. I asked for correct this in wiki.it, but apologies never occourred. He is also too kind to translate my discussions in wiki.it to wiki.en, just to 'help' wikipedians. Not happy enough to have procured my exclusion in wiki.it.

If there is one guy that made a 'personal fact' the contrast against me, is w/o any doubt EH101, for some his obscure reasons.


As his real interest to wiki.en, his contributes ([68]) speaks a volume about his 'serious interest' to contribute: 194 edits, 63 in the main, 6/month. I have a bit different score: [69]. 1546 edits in 3 months, 1073 in the main (515 and 358/month). This is not surely a record, and i don't want to break any, neverthless it speaks well about the will to contribute in wiki.en, and the disproportionate amount of EH activity in the last two months, apparently just to follow and provocke me.

These are not empty words:[[70]]. Now, why, out of his 50 contributes in 1 1/2 month, one third are meant, 'within 2 millions articles and 5 millions users', to cross my activity in Wiki.en (MB.326, F-86, Saab 37, AMX, this debatement etc.).

Also, he always made a single post, insuates, criticize and then vanished: is the article or myself the 'target'?

I never searched him FIRST here, when he made this 'advertisement': [71] already in 3/9. Just to understand better this guy.

3-As for his competence about the arguments disputed, not so great, but he has a personal question with me, for obscure reasons: he overshadows me, then checks in the web, and once he finds 'something', he thinks to have enough to discreditate myself.

The *blatalantly example* is F-86. He reverted my contr in F-86 page saying that my datas must be faced with 'more reliable sources'. I posted F-86 model, F version, -40 subversion datas. He instead posted a link 'more reliable' with F-86K datas http://f-86.tripod.com/f86k.html, a total different model. Strangely enough the datas were not matching. I still wait for contro-rollback and apologies, seen that this was a clear and unexcusable error. Just like post Spitfire MkV with Mk XIV datas. The only web page available in the whole internet about F-86F-40 (despite his high importance in his days) is arguably the one i found at Joe Baugher site: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_13.html. And that's the one contested by mr. Bzuk (while EH101 posted unoticed a totally wrong version).

Sorry, this is what i can say about EH101.--Stefanomencarelli 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brefly answer to BZUK and EH

Sorry, i am so interesting for them..

1-it's false that i want my sources accepted 'without discussions': i want the my sources are not scrapped without discussions, like happened more times.


1-EH have deleted datas i provided. Usually, this happens because there are others, more reliable sources at hand. Not.

-EH posted a non-existent link (wrongly posted, the link NOT functioned because arguably he posed a internal link and not a external link). [72]

-The source provided have not datas about the content disputed

-nodoby autorize him to call 'more reliable' a web source that not even have the disputed datas.

-If I had confused versions, I would have written the article missing data (it's quite simple), but I didn't. So, why am I incompetent?

This should be an explaination? So you know that you have no datas to constest mine, and still you deleted them?? You cannot delete an edit 'because somewhere there should are more reliable sources'. It's vandalism.

-Edicount is MUCH important to establish the kind of your interest to wiki.en and myself. And it's not my guilth if almost all your recent activity was related to 'search and provocke me'.

-The 'throwing discredit is YOUR speciality:[73], [74], [[75]] especially in this wiki.--Stefanomencarelli 12:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brief answer to Bill

1-Insinuate (WITHOUT ANY PROOF) that i make copyviols is, to me, enough as 'personal attack'. See to Akra statements (and your).

Slander (this is how is called in the real world) is not a 'personal attack'? I'd say that yes, it is. It's just like someone arrives an start to call you 'mafious' and then you must proof that you are not a mafia member.

Still i wait for apologies, obviously without any serious hope to have them.--Stefanomencarelli 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Akra

Let's put it clear now, and forever, Akra.

1-Ki-61 is not a copyviol to any source existent in the whole Universe.

2-As for Saab 37, in its discussion page: I have added the update section from Greg Goebel site, he claimed his texts is for public domain.Tnx Greg--Stefanomencarelli 11:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Posted before the text-dump, to avoid any problem.

Now it's enough, really.

3- As for the other 'suspect copyviols': still waits for one daring guy that says when and what i copyiolled.

4-As for OR; another 'baubau' of wikipedia, good to scare everyone: but even here in wikipedia there is no forbiddion to say 'this lemon is smaller than Moon'. There are known facts: no lemon can be bigger than Moon, even if both are yellow. Let's understand this.

5-As for non-english sources, i basically do with what i have at hands. If this makes troubles, we can talk about. This was not the case with F-86. To me these are just histrumentals polemics

6-One dimostration is also that: [[76]] where Herr BillCJ have another time reverted my contributions. This time was not for 'grammar', was not for 'syntax' 'POV', 'Unreferenced' but only slow down - that is WAYYYYYY too much info!

I call this 'vandalism' W/o any doubt. Akradeki saw just a non-existent copyviol, for one time that i used a (PD) source. Needless to say, this made me really hungry.

That's is, while oil price boosts to 90$ and Turkey is in the way to make war against Kurdistan. Regards--Stefanomencarelli 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Akra 2

Listen to me, mr. Akra,

Perhaps you are too impatient to justifie everyone that is not in agreement with me. But when it's enough it's enoug.


F-86 link not function. In every case, i gave 3 different sources for 700 bytes and still this was not 'enough'. With bizarre acrobacies about 'source reliability-verifiability-etc.' that caused a issue that did not really needed to be. I would be pretty curios, if every web link equal or below Baugher ency is abolished, how remains of wiki.references. And if Baugher (300,000 visits, 8 years 'service') site is not enough reliable, good luck to everyone. It's higly ipocrital scream to his unverifiability when there are hundreds thousands web sites much less verifiables and used as will. But i am the eeeevil SM. And now, if all will be OK, Bzuk will provide finally us with just one of the books that Baugher used to set up his article.


Saab 37 [[77]]:

Your assumption: Without sourcing, it has to be treated as a copyvio, and was rolled back by BillCJ. Justified.

This edit was simply the reintroduction of Goebel text. As i stated in the cronology:

herrr, i think Goebel, initially removed, could be accepted now seen is not copyviol

Have you problems to understand that this was the text formerly removed 'because it's copyviol'? Before justifie every thing someone roll-backs to me, think twice and read better.

BillCJ has reverted this edit TEN MINUTES after i posted it. Greetings, too kind, too fair. And his justifiation was: slow down - that is WAYYYYYY too much info! Not because he was concerned to copyviols. Because he knew it wasn't.


About Eh-101 [78]:

the mere fact to digit 132 june did not meant that someone could not kindly ask to me what was the right number. 1 minute after came rollback. Unjustified worry. NO wikilove. NO collaboration at all.

Another about EH.101:

I assured in cronology: I cannot understand how post references here, i can assure i got them. It was just a matter of time. What's was this hurry? Throwing gasoline over fire, nothing else.--Stefanomencarelli 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Akra 3 and final

I protest veemently about the last edits, that shows well over every reasonable level the coward action made by some guy here. Akra has stated that i posted a 'racial slur'. LIE.

Someone remembers that OJ Simson had a defence screaming about racial issues and or plots against him because he was a 'nigger'? That in some manner this led to his assolution? My post here is not meant as racial slur (go figure, italians have a so loong history as racist...), it's meant for a total different question: if you have good advocates (surely not for poors) and possibly a clean public image, you can even escape by murder accusations, rapes and so on. If you are poor and or with a bad public image you ends in prison your career, like happened for three years aven to Tyson with an higly questionable rape accusation. This and surely nothing else was meant as 'racial issue'. And this was meant to say: 'look, there are policies, but there is none that really 'obliges' someone do to something, as Akra states, if nothing else because Wiki is not obligatory for nobody. So there is the word may and not must'.

This is cleary stated here in wiki.en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case:

In March, Fuhrman was called to the witness stand where he testified finding blood marks on the driveway of Simpson's home as well as a black leather glove on the premises which had blood of both murder victims on it. Despite an aggressive cross-examination by F. Lee Bailey, Fuhrman denied on the stand that he was racist or had used the word "nigger" to describe black people in the ten years prior to his testimony. But a few months later, the defense played audio tapes for the jury of Fuhrman using the word repeatedly. The tape was made nearly 10 years earlier by a young North Carolina screenwriter named Laura McKinny, who interviewed Fuhrman in 1986 for a story she was developing on female police officers. These Fuhrman tapes became one of the cornerstones of the defense's case that Fuhrman's testimony lacked credibility, and may have led to Simpson's acquittal. Fuhrman was recalled to the stand in September, but pleaded the Fifth. As a result of his testimony, he was later indicted for perjury, to which he pleaded no contest.[1] Fuhrman later wrote a book about the case called Murder in Brentwood.

Sadly, the bad faith and/or the lack of capability to read between le lines makes bad jokes.

And since i have really enough to be accused of everything every time i discuss with other guys, that being HIGLY IPOCRITES and COWARDS, after provocking or simply discussing with me rans here to cry about the evil Stefanomencarelli. I says this also to Akra: such a delusion, boy. Not to talk about Bzuk, Bill and EH101.

I cease now this question and delete this page from my watchlist. I have enough of this farce, these useless discussions, this arguing continously with bad-faith and-or silly guys that cannot do nothing if not run here and crying about the bad things i do to them, poor, innocient people. The hell with them.

In faith (good, not bad) Stefano Mencarelli, here declares his amusements to this ipocrital level reached by some 'fellow wikipedians', leaves the disturb and fly away from this madhouse.

You can fire me, but surely i wouldn't not longer stay here to discuss with this subjects that are just capables to act like 7-years school.boys. I'd say 'shame', but who cares of shame now? --Stefanomencarelli 22:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very small reply to the last 'news'=

Apart that i still wait for the deleting of 'racial slurs' never meant and happened about mr. Simson, the last edits made by Bzuk speaks a volume, as you can find in this cronology: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:F-14_Tomcat&action=history

He was not alone, but the point is: [79] Bzuk arrives and leave a comment around: 'no we cannot allow SM to make new page, see that horror he made last time?' I noticed a personal attack, gratouitous and pointless especially after some days of relative peace. Fnlayson deleted my prhase that was 'a antagonizing comment' made by me simply sayng to Bzuk that he had made a personal attack over me. Wikipedia do not allow without simplicity to delete other comments in the talk, right? And so i ripristinated it, but -surprise- then arrived mr. BillCJ, that deleted another time my comment. It was not a offensive one, differently than the insinuations made by Bzuk, intervented in a totally peaceful discussion. So we have still Bzuk and BillCJ quickly to support each other. At this point i deleted the link and comment proposed by Bzuk, seen that these monsieurs not allow me to write a comment in a talk page. Surprise, this action was reverted as well. So at one time, Bzuk insinuation was well present, while my comment against this 'manner' to provocke me was deleted. Billcj as well posted a self-called personal attack, removed by another user, and restored by Mmx1 user that called my critics: bullshits.

So here have a gentlemen club in action. Not only they can provocke and make insinuations about me and or my work here, but also forbid to me to answer to them in the talk. This is the 'quality' of those guys, and their 'good faith'also is well displayed. The mere fact that swiftly they came here to complain about my edits, speaks really A VOLUME about their real intentions. Provocke, slander, accuse and then crying for the abuses suffered by me. Such shame.--Stefanomencarelli 11:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:John

[edit] Stefanomencarelli is serially uncivil

I saw Stefanomencarelli's report at AN/I back in August and reminded him to inform anyone he initiates central discussion about. I then saw this edit and warned him about WP:CIVIL. A day later, after he had received a further civility warning from User:Rlandmann, I blocked him for 24 hours for this edit, with the block reason "Attempting to harass other users". Cut to 2 October and this prompted another warning from me. When I looked at some of his other contributions I was moved to leave him this message: "I've also reviewed your recent edits to B-50 Superfortress and several other uncivil messages you have sent to other users. While I respect your wish to improve our encyclopedia, I regret that your English is so limited that it would be better in future to suggest your additions (with references) in talk first. When you make long and poorly-written additions to articles, you shouldn't get so annoyed when others undo your work. Accusing others of bad faith (and particularly the use of the word "censorship" to describe others' good-faith edits) will result in a block if it is continued. The strategy I suggest will allow you to help our project. Please choose wisely how to proceed as I know you mean well and have a lot of good knowledge on aviation and I would hate to lose you from the project."

On 15 October this personal attack, again directed at BillCJ prompted my message which included the following: "This is your last warning. If you persist in badgering other users with posts like this, you will be blocked." I reminded him about Akradecki's generous offer to help copyedit his proposed contributions into shape with a view to rendering them suitable for our project. In reply he left me this message, in part stating "In short: i am not too pleased to see that, every time i discuss with someone, you arrive and advertize or block me. If you want to make PR with myself you can do it better. I do apreciate the discussions peer-to peer, rather than shoot the dog."

[edit] Stefanomencarelli has a very poor grasp of English

Any random sampling of Stefanomencarelli's contributions will reveal that his English is not just imperfect but so poor as to be hard to understand. In other circumstances of course we could find ways around this, if the contributions were of sufficient worth for inclusion (sometimes true), and if Stefanomencarelli was prepared to work collegially with other users to make his proposals suitable for inclusion (so far I have seen no evidence of this). It worries me that he does not seem to realise just how poor his English is; here, for example he challenges me to count the "herrors" in his post; something I rather meanly took him up on here. I made it 13, in quite a short post to a talk page.

Of course there are many good contributors here whose first language is not English. This is not the problem; continually posting large quantities of very poorly-written text of dubious value to article pages, then getting angry with those who remove it, is what is causing the problems here.

[edit] Stefanomencarelli seems unable to work harmoniously with others

Here is Akradecki offering a constructive way out of Stefanomencarelli's difficulties, and here is Stefanomencarelli's rambling and uncivil reply, immediately followed by more wild accusations of vandalism, bullying, etc. He then fired into the mainspace, disregarding Alan's suggestion and using the edit summary "CORRECTIONS are liked. Rollbacking instantaneusly are not. Not talk about 'collaboration' when censorship is the only way someone has to act" for the first in a series of somewhat incoherent (though doubtless good-faith) additions to the B-50 Superfortress page, which were promptly undone by User:Ahunt on the grounds of comprehensibility. And so on.

[edit] Summary

I know that Stefanomencarelli has a sincere wish to improve our coverage of aircraft, a subject on which he is knowledgeable. I see little hope at present of him being able to do this until he:

  1. Accepts his limitations with regard to the English language in which this encyclopedia is written
  2. Learns to work productively with others

As I said here, "Your lack of ability in written English can be compensated by the method suggested; your seeming lack of ability to work productively with others is more serious and will lead to a block if continued". --John 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by EH101

[edit] Personal attacks

Stefanomencarelli engages in personal attacks. This post [80] in my talk page, means from Italian :"You showed yourself once again for what is your being. Shame on you". In this other post [81], titled "it's not an insult, it's a matter of fact that he acted against me for his own low purposes" he wrote "I say it again, your attempts to throw discredit over me here are not welcome". In this post [82], he asks me in a rude way to learn to post external links in the right manner, despite he was not able to follow a fully working website address.

[edit] Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines violation

In this post [83], on Talk:AMX_International_AMX page, unbelievably titled "AMX, a long, sordid and unluckly history", Stefanomencarelli uses a talk page as platform for his personal view, apart from the title, with parts like "F-16 look like Topolino aircraft (=fast, smart, nimble, lucky), while AMX resemble too much Paperino (=unlucky,sympatic and stupid) aircraft", (Topolino is Italian for Mickey Mouse and Paperino is Daffy Duck), clearly violating wikipedia Neutral Point of View rule by attacking a present day airplane performances in its discussion page.

[edit] No consideration of other author's work

In this post [84] on it.wiki (where he is banned infinite for personal attacks) he ends with an italian phrase that means: "Then on wiki.en they ask for sources for any minimum thing, thank goodness I finished Savoia-Marchetti articles before exploding (passing then to counterattack and devastating F-14 Tomcat:)))".

Stefanomencarelli seems perfectly aware his posts lessen wikipedia articles quality, still he continues to put them on, using them as a mean for attacks to the community. --EH101 21:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence presented by Akradecki

[edit] General issues

  • My first involvement came when I was asked, as an outside admin, to look into edits to Kawasaki Ki-61 on August 2. The concern was a large text dump that was suspected of being a copyvio, and which was completely unsourced. The text dumped included opinion, and in response to this OR and the lack of sources, Stefanomencarelli writes: "Yes, these aircrafts ended to fly 60 years ago. Now, they are just rubbles. Here we not talk about GW Bush, God or both. There were only old aircrafts without any weight on modern world: Should do we still duel because this issues? Holy wars in the name of Wikipedia's references? Who can be damaged if i stated, after checked all the datas available, that Ki-61 was a better fighter than Macchi (YEs, i am not nationalist)? Who would be offensed by taht assumption? Just leave that eventually others discusses in the substance of the problem, than avoid it as Wikipedia could be endagered by that holy statement. With the discussions in the merit of the arguments it's possible to reach new results, not with censorship," clearly indicating that he doesn't think we need to be careful about older subjects, and that OR, or "new results" is appropriate. My response was to politely explain the OR problem, to which he said (the next day in a very long diatribe), "So where is the mistake? Because 'no others had sayd this before?' SO what?", clearly not respecting the OR policy after it had been explained to him.
  • There is extensive incivility issues, but others have addressed this sufficiently. What hasn't been addressed is his odd sense of incivility towards himself, otherwise known as the "poor me" syndrome. Examples such as this, where he calls himself a moron. A large number of editors, two of whom are named in this case, have tried hard to help tefanomencarelli, but instead of taking it as constructive criticism, he results in the "poor me" stuff. Also, in this tone, are his periodic ponderings of quitting Wikipedia.
  • Frequently, Stefanomencarelli does not use edit summaries, and when he does, they are often cryptic or derogatory.
  • There is a heavy use of non-english sources that really don't meet the spirit of WP:V and WP:RS. WP:V states "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality." In some cases, usage of Italian books and magazines, translated by Stefanomencarelli are appropriate, because he often writes about subjects (such as WWII Italian-built aircraft) which don't have good coverage in English sources. However, in other areas, he relies so heavily on non-english sources which are unavailable online, that I believe the spirit of WP:V is being violated.

[edit] The earlier proposed solution

As has already been stated, I offered a solution to the problem, wherein he would post a paragraph or two on an article's talk page and give other's a chance to clean it up before going "live". The first time this was tried was here, but instead of the talk page, he put it straight in the article. After I spent a half-hour cleaning it up, the then comes back, removes the cleaned-up material and drops in another large chunk of text. Frustrated that my work to help was undone, I asked him, and he said that "...i forget to say that i was still to rework it." On the heals of that exercise, between 10/15 and 10/18 he dumped an overwhelming amount of text onto the Aeritalia G.91 talk page. Kudos for doing it on the talk page rather than on the article page. It would take hours upon hours of work to clean all that up, and when I don't do it right away, he complains five days later that "are still waiting for since many weeks ago, and nobody cared to honour his part in this un-official agreement." Five days is not "weeks".

Given that such large text dumps are not really all that appropriate for talk pages, I further suggested that he use sandboxes to develop articles, and I pointed out that both BillCJ and I use them extensively to develop articles. However, he has refused to try this, and instead complains that he is being "banned" from mainspace.

[edit] Copyvio allegations

  • Given the perfect, professional English and detailed writing, this is clearly not Stefanomencarelli's work. It is an extremely lengthy text dump with absolutely no citations. While it later turned out that this one was from a PD source, the fact that he didn't credit the source made it looks as if it was his own work, and thus was plaigerism. In addition, he didn't bother to read the existing article, where it was clear that the information had already been included.
  • This was also a suspected copyvio text dump. I am aware that Stefanomencarelli contests the copyvio allegation, but he, at the same time fails to cite his sources so that the text added can be checked to see if it is a vio.
  • The excessive detail that he often presents appears to me (though since I don't have his Italian sources, I can't prove/disprove it) to be direct translations from his sources. He calls it "condensing". My concern is that a nearly word-for-word translation from an Italian copyrighted source, translated into English, still can be considered a copyvio.

[edit] Conclusion

Stefanomencarelli clearly has valuable information to contribute, if only he'd honestly face his limitations, and work with the project editors who have spent a lot of time trying to help him, and who have only received abuse as thanks. Suggestions for solutions will be added over on the Workshop page.

[edit] Evidence presented by BillCJ

[edit] Basic evidences

I stand by BZuk's and AKRadecki's presentation of diffs, and their explanations. I won't try to duplicate their material here. Instead, I'll try to cover some of my direct interactions with Stefanomencarelli below. - BillCJ 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First refusals to provide sources

Stefanomencarelli first came to my attetion with this edit (first of eight successive edits) to Kawasaki Ki-61 and this one to Kawasaki Ki-100. After checking his previous contributions to both pages, I decided that reversion was the best option. I reverted his edits with Reverted non-productive additions by Stefanomencarelli; large text dump is suprisingly well-written, probably copied verbatim, which is a copyvio, even with proper sourcing on the Ki-61 page, and Undid revision 148744603 by Stefanomencarelli - forums aren't valid sources, even if item was sourced or written properly on the Ki-100 (and no, it wasn't written properly!) His response has set the tone for our inteeraction since then: Before call me copyvioler YOU NEED PROOF.By Hell.-SM I still don't know what he meant by "By Hell", but I assume it's an epithet/curse of some sort.

Per, WP:COPYVIO: Wikipedia has no tolerance for copyright violations in it, and we actively strive to find and remove any that we find., and WP:V:Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. I interpret this to mean that when copyvios are suspected, it is up to the contributer to provide the source info, or it can be removed. To this date, I don't know if Stefanomencarelli has ever provided sources for the material he added to those pages that day. We only have to provide proof ourselve if we wish to take action aginst copyviolaters beyond removing the material, such as administraitve action by the Community, or legal action be the Foundation. Alsw, given Stefanomencarelli's problems with the English language exibited even during this ARBCOM, I stand by my assertion that he did not write/rewrite the material he posted that day. - BillCJ 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PAs since filing Arbitration

Stefanomencarelli has continued with his personal attacks againts BZuk, AKRadecki, myself since filing arbitration.

  1. Most of his responses and comments in arbitration have contained personal attacks, especially in his demands for "formal excuses", by which I'm assuming he means apologies. I trust the arbitrators don't need links to these.
  2. Attacks posted on AKR's talk page. -BillCJ 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of comprehension

Stefanomencarelli shows an appaling lack of comprehension in understanding what others say, and often innaccurately reports those comments. In this diff, he writes: "He was not alone, but the point is: 78 Bzuk arrives and leave a comment around: 'no we cannot allow SM to make new page, see that horror he made last time?' Yet what BillZ actually said, per his own provided diff, was: "I concur, and especially because this is what has happened in the recent past, see:[85]. FWIW."

Now, it has been my assupmtion that Stefanomencarelli's English is so limited that he regularly uses translation software to communicate. I have run BZuk's phrase from English to Italian and back through both Google Language and Babelfish to see what comes out.

Google - "I agree, and, above all, because this is what happened in the recent past."
Babelfish - "I agree particularly and because this is that what is happened in the recent past."

This ia a FAR cry from Stefanomencarelli's "interpretation" of BZuk's remarks, but admittedley I could not correct the Italian results for proper grammar. Still, this is the Evidences, and stating that BZuk said "'no we cannot allow SM to make new page, see that horror he made last time?" when he clearly did not say that, is adding false statements into Evidence, whatever the method or motive, especially as he did use single quote marks. This implies his quote is actually what was said, when it clearly was not, and BZuk's actual quote is clearly given in the diffs Stefanomencarelli himself gave. Whether this misrepresentation of others' statements and points of view is deliberate or not is for the arbitrators to consider, but is it certainly not an isolated event here. - BillCJ 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continues pattern with uninvolved users

After dumping text on the Talk:Aeritalia G.91, as requested by Alan, Stefano expressed concern that no one was editing the text. Alan refused to help him at that point, as he has explained elsewhere in the ARBCOM. It should be noted that at no time did Stefano attempt to do any work at clean-up on his talkpage textdump.

Stefano then declared that he would add the text to the main article, and did so here. BZuk responded by adding clean-up tags, with "perfectly good sections are now gone, what gives?" in his edit summary. This is typical of Stefano's edits, in that he not only dumps in poorly-edited text into an article, he disrupts the text that is already there, often reordering sections that had been following WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines.

At this point, User:Ahunt (Adam) attempted clean-up here, apparently responding to BZuk's tags. To my knowledge, Adam has not had any previous interaction with Stefano, nor was he previouslty aware of any problems with Stefano and the involved editors. I first noticed Adam editing on some Cessna articles. He seemed knowledgable, eager to help, and willing to adapt to and learn Wiki proceedures. He has since become a good editor with good standing in the WP:AIR project.

BZUk and Adam worked on the text in several successive edits that evening, attempting to integrate the material, rather than simply delete it. The response by Stefano: 15 hours later, he simply readded the same text dump back in! Adam noted here that "That text was previously posted here and was subsequently edited, it is unworkable to just dump the unedited text back in." He then posted on the talk page here, a brief exchange that lead to Alan blocking Stefano for a week for incivility, including calling Adam a troll.

Thus, even when a previously-uninvolved user attmpts to help Stefano, he bites the had that tries to feed him. A little bit of paranoia after genuine, and even perceived, bad treatemnt is understnadbale in any user. Yet, for the most part, Stefano's behavior has remained the same since he joined en.wiki. Nothing he did or said during this episode is fundamentally different from my first encounters with Stefano over 3 months ago, save for his attempts to source the material this time. He steadfastly refuses to adapt, compromise, or grow as an editor. and continues to view any attempt to edit or redact his additions with hostility, no matter who the editor is. - BillCJ 07:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by EH101

[edit] PAs since filing Arbitration

Stefanomencarelli has continued with his personal attacks againts myself since filing arbitration. In this post, [86] he uses the Talk:AMX International AMX as a tribune for his attacks, still ignoring the WP:TALK guideline and previous suggestions to ask for cooperation from other users using talk pages. He is still posting in the page paragraph titled by himself "a sordid story" using biased personal opinions, writing: "This is a discussion page. I can speak about my tough here, because it's not the article, and discussion is not to say 'oh, my dear, oh, my sweet'. If you have problems to hear about this, stop to shadow me." in a total uncivil behaviour with a complete refusal of the Wikipedia:Consensus concept. The post ends with the insult: If you are hurted by my 'anti-patriotic statements'? it's your problem. I speak for truth, not for Alenia advertising. You have simply no arguments, and not experience. You even failed to discriminate between F-86F and F-86K.--EH101 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Other insults and personal attacks here [87]--EH101 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stefanomencarelli has a very poor grasp of English

Stefanomencarelli complains in several talk pages (and also here) about a rollback: this one [88]. He writes against me "he reverts my modiphics(sic) with the 'reason' to have found 'more reliable datas'= reverting mine about F-86F-40, because he has F-86K datas that needless to say, are 'different' (a day fighter bomber compared with the night-fighter radarized version..). He seems still to have not understood this big mistake, and still show his apalling incompetence.".

Unfortunately stefanomencarelli is still not understanding my post titled (Aerei magazine data must always be compared with more reliable sources like this http://f-86.tripod.com/f86k.html. Please comply.) In other words, I suggested him (like some other users did before) to read more English language sources, different from his Italian magazine (Aerei), using the verb "like this". Despite this clear statement, first he started to attack me pretending the web link was wrong [89], then he insulted me saying I confused two F86 versions and I am incompetent as for above. If I had confused versions, I would have written the article missing data (it's quite simple), but I didn't. So, why am I incompetent ? Probably my only fault is being an en.wiki proud project aviation member without his permission: as we can see above, stefanomencarelli monitors other users activities and evaluate them, judging willingness, proficiency and commitment by comparing with his editcount. With his uncivil behavior stefanomencarelli is transforming aviation articles and this page in a battlefield in which he throws discredit to other users in order to hide his systematic Wikipedia rules violation. --EH101 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stefanomencarelli does not accept integrations for his posts, even in talk pages

Still during this arbitration, stefanomencarelli added this post from an Italian popular 2005 magazine [90] in Talk:AgustaWestland EH101 announcing his intention to add it later in the mainspace. I quickly recognised the incompleteness of his data and I pinpointed here [91] a more updated fully available web reference. With this [92] answer, stefanomencarelli refuses to incorporate other data coming from the web source and still considers his post as valid, reacting angrily to the incoming request for correction, and defining here [93] the reviewers as trolls --EH101 00:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (More) Evidence presented by User:Akradecki

[edit] Examination of rollback issues

In his original statements opening this ArbCom case, Stefanomencarelli made allegations against the two parties involved that they improperly rolled back and reveted his edits. However, in his section above, Stefanomencarelli fails to provide any evidence of this. In order to be fair to Stefanomencarelli, so that his allegations can be considered fully and fairly, I have gone back and tried to find the rollbacks he has alluded to, and examined them to determine whether they were justified or not. Because Stefanomencarelli has not provided a list of rollbacks and reverts, my listing here cannot be considered comprehensive. I'm sure there's more that I haven't found, and if Stefanomencarelli wants to point me to them, I'll look at them as well. In the meantime, here is a summary of edits that he made and which were either rolled back or had other responses by the named parties in three of the most contentious articles:

  • Rollback on F-86 article, here: by Bzuk, rollback of unsourced data. Specs section is sourced to a specific document, and material added is not from that source, therefore rollback is justified.
  • Rollbacks on AgustaWestland EH101 article
    • here: by BillCJ, rollback of unsourced data (fuselage dimensions, costs, etc), poor English (including cryptic date, "132 june 1981"). Could this have been cleaned up? No, since there was no source provided, cleanup editor could not go to the source and find out what the correct information was. Rollback justified.
    • here: by BillCJ, partial rollback of unsourced data. Portion that was understandable was left, with a fact tag added. The other portion was rolled back for grammar. Without a source, a cleanup editor would have a hard time understanding what this non-english phrase, "an higher request for manutention" means. Rollback justified.
  • Rollbacks on Saab 37 Viggen article
    • here and here: By Bzuk, after large text dump (here) of very poor grammar (some of which is almost unreadable) content. This wasn't an actual rollback, but rather some spelling corrections, and addition of a cleanup tag. Definitely justified.
    • After another large text dump, [94], rather than rollback, Bzuk added a cleanup tag here, with the edit summary "Rather than immediately reverting this textdump, can other editors review it". The following edits (quite a few of them) show a number of editors working to cleanup the poor grammar. No rollback, just cleanup.
    • Here was another addition of extensive technical details without any sourcing, and with poor grammar. Rather than revert it, Bzuk tagged it here for copyedit.
    • Here: Addition of uncontexted and unsourced technical details which, without sourcing and without additional context discussion are essentially giberish. Rolled back by Nigel Ish here. Definitely justified. Subsequent edits by other editors worked to further clean up the text.
    • Here: huge cut-and-paste text dump without ref tags. Source was PD, but instead of integrating information from the source into the article, the entire source was simply appended to the article. Most of what was added was already discussed in the existing article. Rolled back by User:T96 grh, justifiably so. Edit summary was "copyvio", which turned out to be incorrect (as the source was PD), however since the addition didn't have ref tags, this was not obvious. Simply adding a note on the PD source in the ref section is not sufficient, because it does not indicate which part of the extensive text that it refers to.
    • Here: Another huge text dump here, completely unsourced and given the quality of English, definitely not Sefano's own writing. Without sourcing, it has to be treated as a copyvio, and was rolled back by BillCJ. Justified.

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[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.