User talk:Francis Schonken/Arrigo disruption

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

Preparation for an RfC/User conduct[edit]

If this would ever get filed, it would probably be at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arrigo=217.140.193.123

~~~~~

Statement of the dispute[edit]

There are two problems appearing through the above:

  • one that is subject to interpretation of the applicability of the WP:POINT guideline: Arrigo's behaviour is disrupting talk on things that are already not easy, which he was perfectly aware of.
  • a minor one that is nonetheless objective: Arrigo listing users on WP:VIP, without anything happening that could fall under the non-standard warning messages he posted only shortly before on the talk pages of two users (Francis Schonken and Pmanderson).

Putting these two together I think "some" action should follow --Francis Schonken 12:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

This section was first posted here, in response to this.

217.140.193.123 and Arrigo are the same, it has been established already a long time ago. Thanks for the links that showed that. Maybe, now that I see these links, I could've found them myself, sorry I wasn't aware it was so easy to establish.

Moreover, this user has been disrupting in votes already so many times, as shows from the links you posted on my talk page. As I said before, personally I think he/she does this merely to collect material for "lamest edit wars ever", to which he/she contributes under both names.

So, the behaviour of this user continues, trying to escape ban by staying very close to what is "officially" allowed, so could only be taken out by application of WP:POINT, while "Gaming the system", or else merely for sockpuppeteering while asked several times over several months to stop that.

The problem is a bit that "Gaming the system" needs an admin to want to go into this a bit deeper, while usually on the outside not so much seems at hand. The scheme is usually as follows: one of the two starts a "reasonable", but very detailed, discussion or lists a WP:RM; then other users join in in the discussion; then, under the name with which 217.140.193.123/Arrigo started the discussion he starts to behave slightly less reasonable, e.g. moving stuff around without apparent reason or starting the same discussion on a completely different page without mentioning to the people in the first discussion he starts a separate thread, etc...; then the other people after some time get a bit nervous for the disruptive behaviour; only then 217.140.193.123/Arrigo switches personality, protecting the unreasonable moves of the other character, advocating neutrality or whatever; finally he lists the whole thing with some exaggeration on "Lamest edit wars ever" or whatever similar BJAODN page.

If an admin is asked to evaluate whether or not this was disruptive behaviour this admin needs at least half an hour of clicks checking "history" of several pages, so usually the admin (no offense intended!) resolves it quicker by thinking yeah, probably all of them went a bit close to the edge, or something in that vein. So that 217.140.193.123/Arrigo can complete the scheme up to the BJAODN listing.

I don't know what to do next. The WP:VIP request I filed yesterday (Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#IP_Moderate) did not trigger any action yet (except 217.140.193.123 and Arrigo both filing false accusations, one on the WP:VIP page and one on my user talk page as far as I can see). Do I have to wait somewhat more for WP:VIP to take effect, or is there anything else that can be done?

What I'll do for the time being is list on WP:AIV again, with a link to this section on your talk page, maybe that's the fastest way. If, however, you think this should be tackled in another way, please let me know ASAP.

--Francis Schonken 08:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

This section continues talk on User_talk:HappyCamper#Without_doubt and User talk:MarkSweep#Hi Mark

Re. the 217.140.193.120 == Arrigo problem I was trying to think about a way of showing the disruptive character of this editor, without an admin needing to click half an hour in edit histories.

The best one I could come up with is this sequence of events:

  1. [1] 20:35, 1 September 2005, User 217.140.193.123 (= Arrigo) posts following comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles), in the section that uniquely treats Elisabeth of Bohemia:

    The idea in this talkpage is to discuss changes to naming conventions, not of changes to individual articles. 217.140.193.123 20:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  2. Since it seems logical to merge the discussion with the discussion going on at the same time at Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia (a discussion on that page triggered by Arrigo = 217.140.193.123!!!), I move the content of the "Elisabeth of Bohemia" section on the "naming conventions talk page" to "talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia" thus: [2] and thus: [3], and leaving a clear link on the "naming conventions" talk page, thus:

    :Talk moved to Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia#Import from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)

    while noting in the edit summary

    at 217.140.193.123's request

  3. After some comments added, seemingly everyone agreeing that the discussion is now at the "Elisabeth of Bohemia" talk page 217.140.193.13 (=Arrigo) nonetheless decides to bring back part of the content of that discussion to "naming conventions talk page, thus [4], obfuscating the link to the Elisabeth of Bohemia talk page, while it is now somewhere in the middle of the section surrounded by other comments.
  4. Then, the sockpuppeteering of 217.140.193.13/Arrigo is found out at the Naming Conventions talk page by John Kenney [5]
  5. Then Pmanderson (signing as Septentrionalis but in no way sockpuppet-like) adds a comment [6] and erases the part of the discussion that had been moved before to the Elisabeth of Bohemia talk page [7]
  6. Then, Arrigo (=217.140.193.13) makes an accusation of deleting/editing, in the edit summary of this revert [8]:

    I have not and I do not accept editing/deleting my comments from this page.

  7. Finally, Arrigo (=217.140.193.13) files a case against Francis Schonken - note that during these 2 steps Francis Schonken edited none of the related pages, neither performed anything that could in the remotest sense be understood as a deletion NOR ANY OTHER EDIT OF THESE PAGES, so the least that can be said is that Arrigo/217.140.193.13 did not wait between posting the warning and listing on WP:VIP:
    • With a home made "warning" message (instead of a prescribed template) at Francis Schonken's talk page: [9]
    • And listing on WP:VIP: [10]

Well, that cost me more than half an hour to put together, but with the ten links to the relevant edits, I think any sysop can "evaluate" in less than half an hour.

Please remember that this thread of disrupting edits is only one in a long list of such threads that could be put together re. Arrigo/217.140.193.13 --Francis Schonken 12:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arrigo/217.140.193.123 also has a history of disrupting efforts to reach a consensus regarding the names and article titles of Japanese emperors as well. Despite a long detailed discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Arrigo unilaterally "decided" what the articles should be titled and began moving them despite a fairly clear census being developed in a different direction, and in any event without waiting for a consensus. To top it off, he posted a rather snide remark on the discussion page saying, "Oops, I already "decided" that reigning empresses will be "X Tenno", as they were formally "female emperors", and "empress" is more reserved as translation to certain other titles such as chugu and kogo. Arrigo 10:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC). -Jefu 06:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, if you just check Arrigo's talk page you will see that it is full of complaints from people about his unilateral decision to just move things around without consulting anyway, or in some cases despite what the consensus appears to be, and you will see the rather combative way that he responds to other users who complain about him. He is by far the most disruptive user I have encountered on Wikipedia -Jefu 06:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Applicable policies[edit]

  1. WP:POINT
  2. Wikipedia:Sock puppet#Circumventing policy. Arrigo is known for trying to wipe traces, when this abuse of "double identity" gets criticism from others:
    1. [11]
  3. Maybe also Wiki-stalking, later in the process:
    1. [12] (see "convoluted plan" remark at the bottom, addressed at the solution I had proposed - the next examples speak for themselves:)
    2. [13]
    3. [14]
    4. [15]
    5. [16]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. HappyCamper trying to help out:
    1. User_talk:HappyCamper#Without_doubt
  2. MarkSweep trying to assist:
    1. [17]
    2. Arrigo's next action: [18] (personal attack, removed)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Francis Schonken 06:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. -Jefu 06:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  2. -Gryffindor 08:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Section to be moved to talk page if this would get filed as an RfC[edit]

Prior discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts[edit]

August 26[edit]

  • User:Arrigo has been moving pages without discussion [19], despite warnings [20]. Rude and condescending to almost all the users who have ever had to deal with this user [21]. Also likes to remove naming tags before there is an end to any discussion [22], [23].

Prior discussion on Francis Schonken's Talk Page[edit]

div items[edit]

Hi. As you made an item of sweden-norway in lame, I am curious to know were you present in that edit war? Or how do you know about it?

If you know the Sw wp, please tell what the situation there is. I have heard negative things of that place.

Btw, have you visited another battled place, Talk:William of Orange. Arrigo 08:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit Talk pages[edit]

Francis, you should not erase any comments of others from article talk pages, if the comment deals at least somehow with the issue. Such removals are regarded as disrupting Wikipedia. If you do not personally or for some other reason, like the comment, that however is no reason for erasure. Only vandalism can be removed, and the defitition of vandalism is narrow. Then, you also should understand that anonymous users are as entitled as you to contribute to Wikipedia and as entitled as you to comment on relevant issues at talk pages. Even the process called WP:refactoring is a tad controversial, and if refactoring is done, it only means edition that replaces personal attacks with nicer terms. Lastly, you should refrain from making personal attacks. Arrigo 11:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Winter Queen[edit]

I guess you wish to have nicknames for her too. Please take a look at Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia. Arrigo 15:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

warning of suspected vandalism[edit]

This message is regarding the page Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Arrigo 06:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute regarding step 2 of #Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

I never requested move of already existing discussion. I wrote a comment suggesting people to contribute thair opinions, if intended to change naming of that single article, there. I find Francis' note in edit summary a misrepresentation and distasteful. 217.140.193.123 06:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I saw as a request is, as quoted above, this sentence added by 217.140.193.123 (=Arrigo):

The idea in this talkpage is to discuss changes to naming conventions, not of changes to individual articles. 217.140.193.123 20:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

At least no intention to interpret this wrongly, or as a sysop trying to help out in the conflict put it:

Proper refactoring that preserves information is not vandalism. Please assume good faith and don't throw around charges of vandalism. If a discussion was moved and the move was done in a transparent fashion, there's nothing wrong with that. --MarkSweep✍ 01:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken 10:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion on Francis Schonken's Talk Page[edit]

More rant[edit]

Francis, please kindly stop fabricating. You know perfectly well that around a week ago you deleted comments of other(s) from an article talkpage, was warned against, and now yesterday you unilaterally decided to remove my comments from a NC talkpage, deciding by yourself where you want to put them. My said comments were for general discussion of that NC policy, which anyway is not decided at an article talkpage, but belongs to the NC talkpage. As we are to assume good faith, I hereby assume you did the said action out of thoughtlessness. (Another, bad faith interpretation is that you wanted them not to affect the NC policy discussion). Whatever is the background, you however are not allowed to move comments of others from talkpages, and you should have understood that already a week ago when warned then. Arrigo 12:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arrigo, whatever way you turn this you didn't follow the WP:VIP guideline that says

Use the {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}/{{subst:test2a}}, {{subst:test3}}, and {{subst:test4}} templates as appropriate. Only if vandalism continues, add user to list.

There was no "test" message according to the required format, followed by "continued" vandalism by me. And you know that perfectly well. While on the other hand you received the test2 message several days ago, on both of your user talk pages (the real and the sockpuppet one), and continued your disruptive behaviour, by adding to wikipedia what I'm perfectly entitled to call "further nonsense". Ask Deb (for example your attempt to "move" Elizabeth of Bohemia to Elisabeth of England). Ask John K (who unmasked your sockpuppeteering). Ask so many others. --Francis Schonken 13:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot be as stupid as to think that a template is necessary nor mandatory. You received your warning almost a week ago and it suffices. Arrigo 16:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning of presumed vandalism[edit]

This message is regarding the userpage User:Arrigo. Please stop changing content of userpages of others. Regardless of reasons, it is generally considered vandalism, as userpages are not for writings of others without consent. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Arrigo 05:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

user:Arrigo blocked 24h (18 September 2005)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arrigo (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Francis Schonken 00:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Hope I got it right this time --Francis Schonken 00:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alleged fourth revert is not the same. Apparently this is the reason why Schonken has declined to provide the diff. Besides, I regard this as removing vandalism. See the talkpage of the article. Arrigo 02:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're not completely the same, so I see that this does violate 3RR. I've blocked you for 24 hours. Also, GFDL is NOT violated, so long as a redirect is kept. Ral315 03:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note in case you are unaware - Arrigo uses other identities, notably 217.140.193.123. Deb 15:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated template substitution[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francis_Schonken/Arrigo_disruption&oldid=1080893022"