Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu/Workshop

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Copied. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- parasti (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Danteferno 01:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Leyasu 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Citing sources

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

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Aye! Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- parasti (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danteferno 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Leyasu 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by others:
  1. Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

3) No personal attacks are allowed on Wikipedia. Editors should specifically refrain from making anything that could be construed as a personal attack in an edit summary, as the statement cannot be retracted.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Especially in edit summaries, though on talk pages and in the articles as well. Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- parasti (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danteferno 01:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Leyasu 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by others:
  1. Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

4) Editors are expected to behave in a civil manner towards other editors. (See Wikipedia:Civility.)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- parasti (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danteferno 01:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Leyasu 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by others:
  1. Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

5) When reverting, the edit summary should explicitly state that the edit is a revert. Edit summaries should not be used for discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. It should also state why you are reverting, though aside from that, I agree with the statement. Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- parasti (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danteferno 01:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Leyasu 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Johnleemk | Talk 06:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing by reverting

6) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- parasti (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Danteferno 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Consensus and ownership of articles

7) (a) 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. (b) This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- parasti (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Danteferno 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Consensus and reverting

8) Wikipedia users are usually expected to discuss changes which are controversial; while this does not necessarily mean discussing the edit before making it, if an edit is reverted a user should make an attempt at discussion before changing it back. In particular, if continued discussion fails to change consensus, a user should respect consensus by not reverting the agreed-upon revision back to the edit that s/he made.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- parasti (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Danteferno 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Definition of consensus

9) Users should not think that their edits are in line with "consensus" or "NPOV" merely because they have said more than have other members of a dispute; all parties' opinions should be respected and all major viewpoints included, in the interest of establishing and maintaining a neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- parasti (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Danteferno 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:


Provocation

10) When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I noticed that Leyasu and Danteferno have edited many of the same articles, and several times they've gone around reverting each other, which is a form of provocation. Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Danteferno has also participated in a mediation case of a dispute that involved Leyasu, but not even remotely Danteferno himself. -- parasti (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Danteferno has also participated in a mediation case of a dispute that involved Leyasu, but not even remotely Danteferno himself." Actually, the mediation case in subject (Death Rock article) mentioned the Gothic Metal article incident (which I was involved) as a similar case, so there was connection sufficient to warrant comment. --Danteferno 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Revert warring

1) Danteferno (talk · contribs) and Leyasu (talk · contribs) have revert warred on Gothic metal. (Random diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4].) Some of Leyasu's reverts were not explicitly marked as such. (Diffs: [5], [6], [7].)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- parasti (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danteferno 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries for discussion

2) Danteferno and Leyasu used edit summaries extensively as a mode of discussion throughout this period. (Random diffs: [8], [9], [10], [11].)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- parasti (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danteferno 01:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

3) Danteferno and Leyasu acted incivilly towards one another by characterising each other's edits as "vandalism". (Diffs: [12], [13], [14], [15].) Leyasu has also told Danteferno to "go fuck yourself" and accused him of acting "meglomaniacal". (Diff: [16].)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. It is true that I called his edits vandalism at that time. After the page was protected, I re-read the protocols of Wikipedia:Vandalism and discontinued incorrect usage of it, anywhere. User:Leyasu, however, did not.[17][18] --Danteferno 22:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Taken out of context is what i said. The whole statement reads Basically, if you dislike an edit i make, ask me about it. If you go around reverting me left, right, and center, im going to quite promptly tell you to go fuck yourself. Taking things out of context essentially twists the comments made, and as such shows them in a different light to how they were meant.
Comment by others:
  1. Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

4) Leyasu has made personal attacks on Danteferno. (Diff: [19].)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Danteferno made an equal amount of personal attacks at me, which is shown in the evidence i have provided. Leyasu 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Danteferno 00:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

5) Leyasu has failed to cite sources for any of his edits to Gothic metal because he encountered trouble locating them. (Diff: [20], [21].) He has also accused Danteferno's sources of being "fan sites" constituting "original research". (Diff: [22].)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Allegations from User:Leyasu that I was using sources from "fan sites" or "original research" were false. The website sources I used included Allmusic.com and The Metal Archives. User:Leyasu claimed these sites were "discredited in a number of books" [23]but he never provided proof. --Danteferno 23:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Listed in my evidence are several times i provided sources, with diffs for each time, including this one [24].
Comment by others:
  1. Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Leyasu placed on probation

1) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Danteferno 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. To ban one and not the other when we both perpertrated the same crime is foolery. Two murderers both kill, one is excused and the other sentenced to death. This is unfair, as is only persecuting one of us for the same action. Agreed with this proposal as long as both me and Danteferno share the same punishment. Leyasu 22:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Johnleemk | Talk 07:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert limitations on Leyasu and Danteferno

2) Leyasu and Danteferno are limited to a maximum of one revert per page per day for six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck out my vote; I've been collecting evidence over the weekend, and haven't found any reason why Danteferno would need revert parole. I might vote support on this again after I have finished collecting evidence (hopefully within the next 24 hours; examining Talk:Gothic metal and its archives has taken a while) and have analyzed it further, but for now I'm opposing and have instead offered the alternative suggestions below. It looks like Danteferno only violated 3RR once. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    Having seen evidence from a few more users, I now agree with giving both of them revert parole. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- parasti (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. To ban one and not the other when we both perpertrated the same crime is foolery. Two murderers both kill, one is excused and the other sentenced to death. This is unfair, as is only persecuting one of us for the same action. Agreed with this proposal. Leyasu 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Being that I'm not on Wikipedia as often as others, it wouldn't really make a difference for me one way or another. If it's going to happen to me, it might as well happen to the users from X other articles who reverted out Leyasu's edits for the same reasons I did (no sources provided, and limited involvement of a moderating third party.) If my aging and now regretted 3RR violations warrant this limitation, then by all means, go ahead. Danteferno 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by others:
  1. Johnleemk | Talk 07:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert limitations on Leyasu

3) Leyasu is limited to a maximum of one revert per page per day for six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Revert limitations on Danteferno

4) Danteferno is limited to a maximum of one revert per page per day for six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. (Note - I'm only signing this for the sake of completeness. I created the separate headings for revert limitations while I was still deciding which way to vote on the revert limitations for both of them.) Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu/Workshop&oldid=431107318"