Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 13 of 14 arbitrators are available, and 7 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Edit warring considered harmful

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Citing sources

2) Editors are expected to cite sources for information they add to articles, especially content of a controversial nature.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Courtesy

3) Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This includes exercising civility and refraining from personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Edit summaries

4) When reverting, the edit summary should explicitly state that the edit is a revert and give a reason for content reversions. Edit summaries are not the proper medium for carrying on a contentious discussion about an article's contents.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC) I could do better with this myself Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] What vandalism is not

5) Mischaracterization of another's good faith edits as vandalism is unacceptable and a breach of civility. Even undesirable edits, such as sweeping, undiscussed changes or perceived violations of the neutral point of view are explicitly not vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus and ownership of articles

6) Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community at large, which comes to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. No need to have (a) and (b) sections. Also, I think "This is crucial to Wikipedia's functioning as a project to create an open-content encyclopædia" would be better wording. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Agree with James's wording, if it makes a difference. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Edit warring

1) Danteferno (talk · contribs) and Leyasu (talk · contribs) have edit warred on Gothic metal (examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]). Some of Leyasu's reverts were not explicitly marked as such (examples: [5], [6], [7]). Leyasu has been blocked 5 times for edit warring or three-revert rule violation, most recently on Ferbruary 17 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Leyasu.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Incivility and personal attacks

[edit] ...by Leyasu

2) Leyasu has acted rudely and incivilly towards Danteferno and made personal attacks, such as telling him to "go fuck yourself" and accusing him of acting "meglomaniacal". (Diff: [8], [9]) Leyasu has also been uncivil by mischaracterising Danteferno's edits as "vandalism". (Diffs: [10], [11]). Leyasu has previously been blocked for personal attacks [12].

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] ...by Danteferno

3) Danteferno has acted incivilly towards Leyasu by mischaracterising his edits as "vandalism". ([13], [14]). He has also used hostile and uncivil language towards Leyasu, such as "rv flawed edit with senseless reasoning.".

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Edit summaries for discussion

4) Danteferno and Leyasu used edit summaries extensively as a mode of discussion throughout this period. (Random diffs: [15], [16], [17], [18].)

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Failure to cite sources and original research

5) Leyasu has failed to cite sources for many of his edits to Gothic metal because he encountered trouble locating them. (Diff: [19], [20].) His comments in defense of the lack of citation suggest his editing was original research: "The only thing i can really offer at hand, is the advice of immersing one's self in the two scenes for a while, as sadly, that is the only truley effective way to understand." [21]

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Revert parole

[edit] ...on Leyasu

1) Leyasu is placed on standard revert parole. He is hereby limited to a maximum of one content revert per page per day for one year. Each revert must be explicitly marked as such.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] ...on Danteferno

2) Danteferno is placed on standard revert parole. He is hereby limited to a maximum of one content revert per page per day for one year. Each revert must be explicitly marked as such.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Leyasu placed on personal attack parole

3) Leyasu is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Leyasu placed on Probation

4) Leyasu is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned from any article by any administrator for good cause. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu#Documentation of bans.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Danteferno warned

5) Danteferno is warned not to engage in incivility or personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement of parole/Probation

1) Should either Leyasu or Danteferno violate any ban imposed under parole or Probation, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.


Every single proposed item has passed 8-0. All remedies should be transfered to the final decision.

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Everything has passed; nothing is controversial. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Close. Charles Matthews 18:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Close. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Close. James F. (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Close. Dmcdevit·t 22:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Close ➥the Epopt 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)