From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Pre-case statements 1.1 Stefanomencarelli's full statement 1.2 Comment by uninvolved EH101 1.3 Comment by uninvolved Nimbus227 1.4 Bzuk's reply to Nimbus227 1.5 Comment by uninvolved Red Sunset 1.6 Comment by MoRsE

[edit] Pre-case statements

[edit] Stefanomencarelli's full statement

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! So, in practical terms, i am forbidden to edit at all in any wikipedia pages on aviation project. Even if i had respected this (forced) pact to not post big edits in main pages, my censors have no attenctions to help these edits, and so i continue to write in talk pages only, risking immediate roll-backs in contrary cases, while what i write is not allowed to be put in the main pages.

At one time i written many articles without these problems, now even if i provide sources and try to respect the endless rules that are asked for, i am handled as an idiot and called troll without any problem. I am forced to contest the operate of these admins. I don't perfectly write in english, but perfection is not obligatory in contribution rules AFAIK:

"Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that, although it should be aimed for, *perfection is not required*."

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)

Answer to Bzuk:

First relations were not as pacific as you mean about 'welcome' [[5]], but this was a very OLD story. And it's not related to wiki.it how you are tryng to link. The problem lies here, in the last weeks: every stuff i write i am endagered of promptly deleting.

It's not guilth of mine if i have sources on italian aircrafts written in italian, and it's not guilth of mine if i am enough 'expert' to make comparations that seems NNPOV.

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

Gratuitus accuses. I have incidentally abandoned the 'large dumping' and this is not still enough. It's already amusing to be forced to write only in talk, but to say the least *if someone is so really 'interested' in quality to forbid editing in the main to me, then after so drastic decisions, could he to take parts to the overhaulings of these edits in the talk pages?. Instead, it's sufficient to make nothing.

I fail to see how this could be allowed: Wikipedia is writable only by english corrent speakers? So, put it clear instead to forbid to me to edit. It's Wiki.en. not wiki.swaili. Almost all the world has to do with english and many not-well english speakers are interested to contribute. Now i am even roll-backed for adding simple datas and still i am waiting someone interested to re-wiev B-50-CF104 and G.91. I still wait but nobody cares. So, or wiki establish that i must write only excellent in english or if this is not requested in such measure, i must be freed to post in wiki. It's uncacceptable that some pages are simply out of my action, not simply editing. BillBC is the main responsable to these things, but still he not bother to talk here. Is not a thing a little 'degrading' seen that he don't bother even to answer to me in talk? If these things will continue, i'll consider my self free and re-start to post regardless of agreements signed the last days (or ,for the enjoy of someone, quit and leave).--Stefanomencarelli 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To Bzuk:

'The editor in question' AKA myself, has incremented his edits just to hoverhaul some articles. In 10 october i made 184 edits, almost exclusively to adjuste almost all articles i wrote.

That's is the misleading of this history: i made efforts to make things better and this is not casually reversed against me.

To Akra:

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)

Response to BillCJ

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?

2-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

So i am 'damaging' the 'poor' wikipedia? So, my edits are seen by monsiers here? Ha, now i even extend the 'damage area'. But what about italian aircrafts like the entire Savoia-Marchetti dinasty (SM.79, SM.81,SM.81,Savoia-Marchetti_SM.84)? CANT Z.1007, CRDA CANT Z.1018, CANT Z.501? Macchi MC.202 and Macchi MC.205? What about the ridicolous level of knowledge that your encyclopedia had about before i started to couver them?? Hey, man, that's the spirit you display with contributors, so no wonder that i am see as 'damager' of wiki. It's really outrageus.

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.

• One-My issues with wiki.it have NOTHING to do with here, and to start with i was so 'asocial' that i have three articles as 'featured' in that wiki.
• Two-Your accusation about myself are cleary personal attacks. While i have no reason to say i am always right about all i am not suitable to be treaten as a sort of monster by you or someone else.

Another thing, that speaks a volume about 'the kindly manners in wikipedia'. In the page F-86 Sabre: [[6]] i have noticed the adding of few RAW DATAS i put in the page, just because i saw that they were missing. I hoped that it was liked and nobody leaved them at will, but Bzuk arrived and disputed them. I have a magazine with F-86F-40 datas, i have searched on the web and put two links to show that i have no dreamed them.

And what's happened today? Bzuk has deleted them, because they are 'unsourced' or whetever. I gave the magazine datas, i gave references, i gave two links with the exactly datas included the max speed both on sea level and at 10,500 m. And even this was not enough.

And then, who speaks agains me on what basis talks? Who is criticable for his manners? Just tell me. With these things, with the forbid to edit even few datas i wouldn't get crazy. I am start to loose interest to edit in a place where, with some excuses like errors and references (in italian) i am seen as a criminal in a penitentiary.

I am forced to leave or obtain those justice and respect that are blatalantly lacking to me. Such a shame.--Stefanomencarelli 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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: [[7]]. 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?

Bis: X BillCJ: As you can see i've written right your nickname and so you could not really tell me that i am incapable to 'grow'. OTOH you are finally almost capable to call me right as well, and not Stefo, Stephano or whetever. So it' a multilateral stuff.

Second, after all that whining list posted below:

1-you cannot explain the F-86 stuff. There are not grammar, not NNPOV, not 'spaghetti sources-only' there. Real concrete raw datas only, and again, not accepted. Bzuk had not answered to my data references, instead went here to whining. Is it a bit 'strange'? I find yes, it is.

Someone (yes i know who is him, but silence, please) has reversed my contr. in F-86 page with a non-existent link used as 'reference'(LOL). And nobody cared. Do you realize that this was greatly worse than add datas with existent references? What can i have done more than this? Am i the only one obliged to justify every thing i do, when others are free to vandalize pages at will? Just asking. It's not a marginal question at all.

2-You cannot either explain this:

'I want to award you with a MoRsE MeDaL for the work you've done with expanding the Italian aircraft articles. Keep on doing what you do! :) --MoRsE 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)'

Not this: 'While German airplanes are very well known, Italian ones are so unknown they may as well have flown on the far side of the moon. Your articles on Italian aircraft are fascinating. Do you object to some tiny polishing up on your Inglish by a English-Only speaker? Tabletop 10:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not even this: 'Do not give up the good fight. I have reviewed your edits. You are providing information to the project that far exceeds what others are capable of. I hav seen the rollbacks and you are absolutely right: they are unjustified. It seems that there are those with little better to do than delete the hard work of others. I am suprised that the Admins have not corrected theem for their sniveling comments as they make sweeping deletes. Don't give up because of a few weak minded individuals that are more concerned with their ownership of the articles than in the improvement of the project.68.244.246.90 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)'(NW it was recognized as 'troll activity', maybe, but this is still a compliment)

Not 'all is bad'. Just a of 'perception of threat' that makes monsters and de-humanize the guys behind the screen.--Stefanomencarelli 19:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to BillJC

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)

Response to EH101

Reply to EH101: sure, i have no property to any article. But to have a child and say: 'that's my son' not means that 'i am the master/propetary of him'. It means i made this baby (with another human being). Obviousely, focusing on the mere 'property' is misleading, but Wikipedia is so worried about 'copyright' that everybody is blind to any other meanings to the term 'i have'. I have a mother, a father, a grandmother, a child, some cats, but nobody of them is 'mine' as slaves or objects. Simply to understand? For some nuts it's not.

They thinks actually only about $$ and dispraces the ones that realized that works, as GFDL autorizes to consider them slaves. Obviosely the truth is another.

The fact that one artist, as example, makes a opera and then sell it not means that this opera has 'no father'. If not, try to buy a Gougain,Manet, Velasquez, Raffaello, just because 'sig. Rossi' has it.

And problems with wiki.it to me were mainly caused by persons, happy only to provocke and even blackmail me (in the votations for feauturing). And i could make names, but someone could take it as personal attack and so i am retaining to do so. But i could, and by Zeus i should, also.

When i came to wiki.it the aviation/naval/artillery/missile sector was almost nilh. There was any WWII US fighter except a pair of stubs. I felt shame for wiki.it seeing this, and tried to make my best to improve it. Others did not liked it, but seriously,it was not guilth of mine.

Response to Red Sunset

and in the recent revelations as to the nature of the reference sources used. Although I personally have an issue with using sources written in a language where the information cannot be verified by the reader, I continued "in good faith" that they were reliable, but the use of children's magazines is a bit suspect to say the least.

Dear R.Sunset: i appreciate your discrete and silent efforts to improve my articles without making bloody reverts and edit war. That's how i expect as 'collaboration'. But_ this statement above is with all the respect, gratuitous and false. Let's make it clear. Do you are arguing that Aerei, RID, Storia Militare are 'children magazine'? They are the best stuff available in italian.

RID magazine is the main defence magazine in italian language, the most referenced and the most appreciated also with his director's partecipation in TV programs in all the international crisis happened last years. Storia militare is the main and perhaps the only historical military magazine available. Aerei is a fair magazine, lighter as contenutes, almost as Aeronautica and Difesa, but full of datas, services, monographies. None of them can be called 'children magazine'. They are written by professionists, and only in the last years their quality level has a bit dropped, mainly for the lack of 'news'. But all the material i have is not 'children' at all and a endless source of historical/tecnical/analisis material. In particular, the reports of Aerei, A&D, Panorama Difesa and others are really good. RID analisis of aero-tecnical is AFAIK unmatched by any other military magazine, a top-notch worlwide. Finally, Storia Militare is far worse than Rivista Storica, but this was closed and SM remained. It's still a endless source of material about WWI, WWII and some other XX century stuff.

They absolutely not writes for kids, except perhaps N.Sgarlato, that is not necessarly a insult. So be more informed before make such gratouitus statements.

A.Nativi (analyst, 25 years service in RID and actual director), N.Sgarlato (divulgator, author of thousands articles, books and monografies in over 30 years), N.Pignato (Author, among the others, of Storia dei mezzi corazzati encyclopedia and main expert of military historical veicles in Italy, he also have over 30 year experience), M.Annati (Italian Navy former officier and expert of naval weapons), G.Ferrari (Nuclear engeneer and expert of WMDs), E.Po (divulgator), S.Coniglio (engeneer and modern aircraft engine expert), E.Bonsignore (Analyst both tecnical and political), Tullio Marcon (Main italian historical expert of War in Mediterranean, and Italian Navy), J-P. Housson (free lancer and expert in special forces and third world conflicts since 20 years), A.Margelletti (Strategical analyst and director of a 'center of strategical analisis') should awaits for your apologies. I don't read Topolino and Paperinik.--Stefanomencarelli 13:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to MORSE

If i well understood you said:

• my articles are from copyviols? This is already said and my unswer is the same, as always: it's a lie, or a ill-informed statement, sorry. Is it this the display of the slander power? Evidently, yes. But i refuse totally this statement, and i don't fear any verify.
• As for 'award abouse' i don't know what are you says, is it an 'abuse' remember to my detractors that i was 'awarded'? While EH101 misinterpetated the meanings of this award, i am abusing of it?

11:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• The stuff about 'write in the talk' is already covered, and not seems to have solved the problem, but mainly for other's disinterest
• Finally, i don't share with you your judgement about Bill and Bzuk, as obvious. Perhaps you have your good reasons, HIMO i have too.--Stefanomencarelli 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Please see [8]. I don't know who did it but still, it is abuse. --MoRsE

• This was not my work, someone else went and changed the thing. You went and deleted it. So what's the problem? It was a mere vandalizing, like many others. What's my relation with this?--Stefanomencarelli 13:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved EH101

I wish to point to Mr. Stefanomencarelli that writes "i(sic) have three articles as 'featured' in that wiki (it.wiki)." he, like everybody else, owns no articles on that and on any of the Wikipedia projects. Anyway, It could be useful to add that during one of those featuring debates he was banned for three months (and today the ban is infinite) for personal attacks to rewievers.--EH101 00:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved Nimbus227

I have been an editor on Wikipedia for only three weeks experiencing the low of an 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. 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. 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 speak German fairly well and am an English translator for the F-40 series of aviation books [9] 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 it can take and can understand completely that the only way to correct the articles he has contributed to is to revert even if it does mean that new information is omitted. I personally hope that the situation improves soon.Nimbus227 22:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Bzuk

I do realise that I was unfortunate to land in a 'briar patch' having read through many other aviation article talk pages. I was expecting to find lively debate in the F-104 articles revolving around common misconceptions by the public but I found a different discussion instead which was obviously bogging down progress on improving the articles. I have had nothing but encouragement (bar the odd slapped wrist for newbie mistakes) since I've been here and no reversions AFAIK. I further realise that this is not a discussion page but thought that the arbitrators might find my point of view relevant. Hoping for a speedy and practical conclusion to this matter. Nimbus227 00:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bzuk's reply to Nimbus227

Dear Nimbus227, be aware that your contributions as well as those of Stefanomencarelli are valued and that in the spirit of camaraderie, editors to Wikipedia are welcomed and submissions are not routinely challenged because "good faith" does trump every other consideration. The instances that were evidenced in some submissions related above do not represent the typical Wikipedia aircraft article contribution, nor even the usual Wikipedia edit. By and large, thousands upon thousands, maybe even millions of edits have been made without controversy because a bevy of interested and knowledgable contributors have joined together to create a unique reference source. No one in the group of editors working on Wikipedia aircraft articles prefers or enjoys editwarring or conflicts, instead it is a group whose passion like mine and yours has revolved around aviation and aviators. FWIW Bzuk 00:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Comment by uninvolved Red Sunset

Since his first appearance on en.wiki, Stefanomencarelli has demonstrated enthusiasm in contributing in depth to numerous articles that have hitherto received little or no interest, and created many others, albeit with a poor grasp of the English language. This is highly commendable, and the language/grammar problem is understandable (pun not intended), but the sheer volume and nature of the contributions has not always improved the articles and has led to much work on the part of other editors in cleaning it up. Other, more experienced and well-regarded editors, most notably Bzuk and BillCJ have correctly attempted to deal with the issues of sourcing and copyvios, and have found it necessary to remove the associated material; while I have concentrated mainly on copyediting. This has unfortunately led to Stefanomencarelli interpreting their actions as being unduly hostile and taking issue with those involved, rather than adapting his edits to conform with wiki guidelines; however, it is only fair to say that I have received no negative responses from him to any of my own modifications to his work. My participation in the clean-ups has waned of late because of the overwhelming amount of Stefano's contributions, and in the recent revelations as to the nature of the reference sources used. Although I personally have an issue with using sources written in a language where the information cannot be verified by the reader, I continued "in good faith" that they were reliable, but the use of children's magazines is a bit suspect to say the least.

IHMO, the suggestion by Akradecki that Stefanomencarelli posts his contributions on discussion pages only is a good solution to the problem, but would require his willingness and patience in allowing other editors time to incorporate them into the relevant articles. --Red Sunset 10:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Stefanomencarelli

Thank-you for explaining the nature of your sources and I appreciate your comments, but it highlights my remarks regarding the problems involved in using sources that we are unable to refer to ourselves, and which were described by other editors. No insults to any of the authors were intended. --Red Sunset 21:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by MoRsE

I would like to like to add my comments on the issue.

I was quite surprised when Stefanomencarelli started contributing to the articles of the WP:AIR project. Suddenly large amounts of information was added to relatively obscure articles (mainly Italian aircraft articles), which was quite nice. Obviously the user had access to better/more detailed sources than many of us other.

However, the massive additions of information aroused some suspicion among the ranks, and some editors began suspecting the user of copyright violations/text dumping and started to investigate the matter a little more thoroughly. I decided to stay low on the matter until there was some clear evidence on the matter. I even decided to give Stefanomencarelli an award as encouragement for his contributions at quite an early stage. However, in light of the development in the matter, as well as reasons of abuse of the award, I have decided to withdraw it.

However, I have begun leaning towards a reprimand towards the user as there have been some indications that the texts have been taken from an Italian aviation magazines (unquoted), and I would also suggest that Stefanomencarelli takes up the advice given before: If he decides to contribute in a similar manner in the future, then place the text on the article talk page for further copyediting, and add the sources.

As for Bzuk and BillCJ, I have come to know them as some of the most dedicated authors in the WP:AIR project. Their contributions have been absolutely vital for the momentum and quality of the project. --MoRsE 07:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)