Case Opened on 03:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 19:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the
Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
/Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
Sometime ago the Gothic Metal article was revised from a version posted by Danteferno. A long discussion took place involving several users, including myself, as to the revision, and how best to implement it (See Talk Page Archives).
During this time user Danteferno made personal attacks against all users who worked on the revision of the article, as well as claiming the article was 'his' and it was the 'his NPOV version'.
After a consensus was reached for the revision to take place user Danteferno left Wikipedia, and the revision was posted. Subsequent edits have been made to the revision since, mainly by myself, to improve the articles content.
Danteferno has since returned, vandalising the article. Discussion has since been raised on the talk page about this, in which user Danteferno has made more personal attacks at users, mainly myself, and user Parasti including direct insults, and accusations of consipiring to vandalise Wikipedia. The user for a brief time also followed my edits reverting them, including minor spell edits. The user has also ignored consensus twice, claiming that it is not applicable without his agreement, which he doesnt give unless it is in his favour.
A consensus has been reached by users that the article does not need revising, at which Danteferno has now claimed he is changing what he claims is 'his' article, to 'his NPOV version' under the pretense other users dont have the right to edit the article without his permission. Requests to admins for advice and the mediation comitte have gone unasnwered, as well as most all attempts at peacefull dispute, to which user Danteferno has begun claiming that nobody likes myself or Parasti due to the lack of comments.
User:Leyasu joined Wikipedia in November and since then has been reverting a number of articles adding unsourced claims, and each time other editors ask for him to cite sources, he either refuses, or accuses the editors of harassing him while he simultaneously attacks/harasses them.
He has called a number of Wikipedia users (including myself) "meglomaniacal" and in one case he was blocked for it. (See User_talk:Leyasu). He also wrote this [1] in my talk page. In the case of the Gothic Metal article, he wrote a "revised" article, claiming the original (which had sources from reliable websites) was "POV" (He still has not provided evidence of this). He submitted his "revised" version without consensus (the only consensus provided is that "no one objected"; I had been offline at that time so couldn't add input, but there was still much objection to it, as evident in Talk:Gothic metal).
Rather than start another revert war, I added tags on the top of the page explaining that the article needed work/improvement, and he removed them, calling them "Vandalism." In fact, User:Leyasu has reverted a number legitimate edits in other articles, calling them "Vandalism", "POV" or "Bad faith edit", when the case was none of the above (See User_talk:Leyasu).
User:Leyasu's allegations that I personally attacked him are completely false; perhaps I have been short and abrupt with him, but so have others, as he has been uncooperative in citing sources for the edits he makes, and disrespects other editors greatly. The best way for this dispute to be resolved is that User:Leyasu either provides references in any of the articles that he edits (specifically Gothic metal), or a brand new article be written with a unilateral agreement that what has been written originated from proper sources. Thank you.
I am not involved in the "original" gothic metal discussion that took part during November 2005. I have, however, partly read the archives concerning the mentioned revision.
On 2006-01-15 Danteferno added two templates to the gothic metal article -- {{cleanup-rewrite}} and {{citation style}} -- without stating reasons on the talk page. As the (by consensus) subpaged revision had been moved to the original article without any objections approximately three weeks ago, and seeing no recent discussions on the talk page, I reverted the article. [3] Unfortunately though; leaving a message on the user's page would be far more appropriate. I did not expect Danteferno would take my edit as offensive and vandalism [4]. I left a message [5] on his talk page explaining why I had reverted the article, and I asked for reasons of why have the templates in the article (respectively, what's wrong with it). However, instead of answering, he seemed to have problems with the summary I added for my edit, where I mentioned consensus (see "No Discussion" does not equal Concensus). I left another message [6] that clearly states what is expected from him. To which the reply was, that I have not spent enough time on Wikipedia to understand how it works, obviously unrelated to the question.
Danteferno also responded to a comment made by Leyasu on gothic metal talk page, calling me a "friend" of Leyasu, which I find offensive, as I do not know user Leyasu personally; and accusing me of "joining Leyasu in his 3RR violations on other articles", which I find rather amusing, as it is easy to check my contribution history to find his statement libellous. After explaining that his comment is a personal attack, and asking again what is it he considers wrong in the article, I finally got the response. That's basically it. -- parasti ( talk) 02:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added myself as an involved party because I mediated the Gothic metal debate in November-December 2005 and have checked a few times since to see how debates on Talk:Gothic metal and other metal-related talk pages were going. In this summary, I will mainly discuss my interactions with them during November and December. I could provide dozens of diffs (at least) of Leyasu and Danteferno fighting with each other. See the expanded history of Gothic metal for more evidence.
At first, Leyasu did a
WP:BOLD rewrite of the page, which
Ray Dassen reverted; Ray hasn't made any further edits to the article. Leyasu restored his version, which I reverted again. After Leyasu restored his version yet again, Dante reverted it back to mine; so by then, 3 editors had reverted Leyasu's version. I
tried to tone down Leyasu's version to make it more acceptable, but less than two hours later Danteferno and Leyasu were reverting each other - roughly two dozen reverts each in less than a day, and neither user was blocked despite my
listing the violation on WP:AN/3RR (I was not yet an admin at the time). After the page was protected for several weeks, I was pleased to be engaged in productive discussion with Danteferno and Leyasu, and we started an extensive revision to the article in a temp subpage. However, after bringing out numerous policies (
WP:OWN,
WP:CIVIL,
WP:NPA,
WP:CITE, etc.) we weren't getting as far as I thought. Danteferno left briefly, and Leyasu moved his revision into the main article after I had copyedited it (not knowing a great deal about the subject, or when/if Danteferno would return, I couldn't raise any further objections). Since then, Leyasu has received
2 12-hour blocks
a 12-hour block, rather than the standard 24 hours, for separate 3RR violations violating 3RR; administrators have gone easy on him. Danteferno has never been blocked for such violations.
I think that filing this RfAr was the latest of many incidents of Leyasu throwing mud at Danteferno, but I think the case should still be heard, with both users in mind. Reading Leyasu's talk page recently, I found that several other users, both admins and non-admins, have tried to reason with him and failed, and I think that stricter measures need to be taken to make sure that he abides by policies. Slaps on the wrist haven't taught him as much as they should have.
This is another mediation case from this month where Leyasu is involved.
-- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (I fixed the part of my statement referenced by Parasti in his reply below; thanks. Please also note that I have recently had the capitalization of my user name changed, in case you need to look for any specific contributions by me or on my talk page. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC))
Leyasu has received 2 12-hour blocks, rather than the standard 24 hours, for separate 3RR violations.
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
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.
2) Editors are expected to cite sources for information they add to articles, especially content of a controversial nature.
3) Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This includes exercising civility and refraining from personal attacks.
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.
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.
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.
1) Danteferno ( talk · contribs) and Leyasu ( talk · contribs) have edit warred on Gothic metal (examples: [7], [8], [9], [10]). Some of Leyasu's reverts were not explicitly marked as such (examples: [11], [12], [13]). Leyasu has been blocked 5 times for edit warring or three-revert rule violation, most recently on Ferbruary 17 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User: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: [14], [15]) Leyasu has also been uncivil by mischaracterising Danteferno's edits as "vandalism". (Diffs: [16], [17]). Leyasu has previously been blocked for personal attacks [18].
3) Danteferno has acted incivilly towards Leyasu by mischaracterising his edits as "vandalism". ( [19], [20]). He has also used hostile and uncivil language towards Leyasu, such as "rv flawed edit with senseless reasoning.".
4) Danteferno and Leyasu used edit summaries extensively as a mode of discussion throughout this period. (Random diffs: [21], [22], [23], [24].)
5) Leyasu has failed to cite sources for many of his edits to Gothic metal because he encountered trouble locating them. (Diff: [25], [26].) 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." [27]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5) Danteferno is warned not to engage in incivility or personal attacks.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
Case Opened on 03:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Case Closed on 19:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the
Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
/Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
Sometime ago the Gothic Metal article was revised from a version posted by Danteferno. A long discussion took place involving several users, including myself, as to the revision, and how best to implement it (See Talk Page Archives).
During this time user Danteferno made personal attacks against all users who worked on the revision of the article, as well as claiming the article was 'his' and it was the 'his NPOV version'.
After a consensus was reached for the revision to take place user Danteferno left Wikipedia, and the revision was posted. Subsequent edits have been made to the revision since, mainly by myself, to improve the articles content.
Danteferno has since returned, vandalising the article. Discussion has since been raised on the talk page about this, in which user Danteferno has made more personal attacks at users, mainly myself, and user Parasti including direct insults, and accusations of consipiring to vandalise Wikipedia. The user for a brief time also followed my edits reverting them, including minor spell edits. The user has also ignored consensus twice, claiming that it is not applicable without his agreement, which he doesnt give unless it is in his favour.
A consensus has been reached by users that the article does not need revising, at which Danteferno has now claimed he is changing what he claims is 'his' article, to 'his NPOV version' under the pretense other users dont have the right to edit the article without his permission. Requests to admins for advice and the mediation comitte have gone unasnwered, as well as most all attempts at peacefull dispute, to which user Danteferno has begun claiming that nobody likes myself or Parasti due to the lack of comments.
User:Leyasu joined Wikipedia in November and since then has been reverting a number of articles adding unsourced claims, and each time other editors ask for him to cite sources, he either refuses, or accuses the editors of harassing him while he simultaneously attacks/harasses them.
He has called a number of Wikipedia users (including myself) "meglomaniacal" and in one case he was blocked for it. (See User_talk:Leyasu). He also wrote this [1] in my talk page. In the case of the Gothic Metal article, he wrote a "revised" article, claiming the original (which had sources from reliable websites) was "POV" (He still has not provided evidence of this). He submitted his "revised" version without consensus (the only consensus provided is that "no one objected"; I had been offline at that time so couldn't add input, but there was still much objection to it, as evident in Talk:Gothic metal).
Rather than start another revert war, I added tags on the top of the page explaining that the article needed work/improvement, and he removed them, calling them "Vandalism." In fact, User:Leyasu has reverted a number legitimate edits in other articles, calling them "Vandalism", "POV" or "Bad faith edit", when the case was none of the above (See User_talk:Leyasu).
User:Leyasu's allegations that I personally attacked him are completely false; perhaps I have been short and abrupt with him, but so have others, as he has been uncooperative in citing sources for the edits he makes, and disrespects other editors greatly. The best way for this dispute to be resolved is that User:Leyasu either provides references in any of the articles that he edits (specifically Gothic metal), or a brand new article be written with a unilateral agreement that what has been written originated from proper sources. Thank you.
I am not involved in the "original" gothic metal discussion that took part during November 2005. I have, however, partly read the archives concerning the mentioned revision.
On 2006-01-15 Danteferno added two templates to the gothic metal article -- {{cleanup-rewrite}} and {{citation style}} -- without stating reasons on the talk page. As the (by consensus) subpaged revision had been moved to the original article without any objections approximately three weeks ago, and seeing no recent discussions on the talk page, I reverted the article. [3] Unfortunately though; leaving a message on the user's page would be far more appropriate. I did not expect Danteferno would take my edit as offensive and vandalism [4]. I left a message [5] on his talk page explaining why I had reverted the article, and I asked for reasons of why have the templates in the article (respectively, what's wrong with it). However, instead of answering, he seemed to have problems with the summary I added for my edit, where I mentioned consensus (see "No Discussion" does not equal Concensus). I left another message [6] that clearly states what is expected from him. To which the reply was, that I have not spent enough time on Wikipedia to understand how it works, obviously unrelated to the question.
Danteferno also responded to a comment made by Leyasu on gothic metal talk page, calling me a "friend" of Leyasu, which I find offensive, as I do not know user Leyasu personally; and accusing me of "joining Leyasu in his 3RR violations on other articles", which I find rather amusing, as it is easy to check my contribution history to find his statement libellous. After explaining that his comment is a personal attack, and asking again what is it he considers wrong in the article, I finally got the response. That's basically it. -- parasti ( talk) 02:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I've added myself as an involved party because I mediated the Gothic metal debate in November-December 2005 and have checked a few times since to see how debates on Talk:Gothic metal and other metal-related talk pages were going. In this summary, I will mainly discuss my interactions with them during November and December. I could provide dozens of diffs (at least) of Leyasu and Danteferno fighting with each other. See the expanded history of Gothic metal for more evidence.
At first, Leyasu did a
WP:BOLD rewrite of the page, which
Ray Dassen reverted; Ray hasn't made any further edits to the article. Leyasu restored his version, which I reverted again. After Leyasu restored his version yet again, Dante reverted it back to mine; so by then, 3 editors had reverted Leyasu's version. I
tried to tone down Leyasu's version to make it more acceptable, but less than two hours later Danteferno and Leyasu were reverting each other - roughly two dozen reverts each in less than a day, and neither user was blocked despite my
listing the violation on WP:AN/3RR (I was not yet an admin at the time). After the page was protected for several weeks, I was pleased to be engaged in productive discussion with Danteferno and Leyasu, and we started an extensive revision to the article in a temp subpage. However, after bringing out numerous policies (
WP:OWN,
WP:CIVIL,
WP:NPA,
WP:CITE, etc.) we weren't getting as far as I thought. Danteferno left briefly, and Leyasu moved his revision into the main article after I had copyedited it (not knowing a great deal about the subject, or when/if Danteferno would return, I couldn't raise any further objections). Since then, Leyasu has received
2 12-hour blocks
a 12-hour block, rather than the standard 24 hours, for separate 3RR violations violating 3RR; administrators have gone easy on him. Danteferno has never been blocked for such violations.
I think that filing this RfAr was the latest of many incidents of Leyasu throwing mud at Danteferno, but I think the case should still be heard, with both users in mind. Reading Leyasu's talk page recently, I found that several other users, both admins and non-admins, have tried to reason with him and failed, and I think that stricter measures need to be taken to make sure that he abides by policies. Slaps on the wrist haven't taught him as much as they should have.
This is another mediation case from this month where Leyasu is involved.
-- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (I fixed the part of my statement referenced by Parasti in his reply below; thanks. Please also note that I have recently had the capitalization of my user name changed, in case you need to look for any specific contributions by me or on my talk page. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC))
Leyasu has received 2 12-hour blocks, rather than the standard 24 hours, for separate 3RR violations.
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
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.
2) Editors are expected to cite sources for information they add to articles, especially content of a controversial nature.
3) Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This includes exercising civility and refraining from personal attacks.
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.
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.
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.
1) Danteferno ( talk · contribs) and Leyasu ( talk · contribs) have edit warred on Gothic metal (examples: [7], [8], [9], [10]). Some of Leyasu's reverts were not explicitly marked as such (examples: [11], [12], [13]). Leyasu has been blocked 5 times for edit warring or three-revert rule violation, most recently on Ferbruary 17 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User: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: [14], [15]) Leyasu has also been uncivil by mischaracterising Danteferno's edits as "vandalism". (Diffs: [16], [17]). Leyasu has previously been blocked for personal attacks [18].
3) Danteferno has acted incivilly towards Leyasu by mischaracterising his edits as "vandalism". ( [19], [20]). He has also used hostile and uncivil language towards Leyasu, such as "rv flawed edit with senseless reasoning.".
4) Danteferno and Leyasu used edit summaries extensively as a mode of discussion throughout this period. (Random diffs: [21], [22], [23], [24].)
5) Leyasu has failed to cite sources for many of his edits to Gothic metal because he encountered trouble locating them. (Diff: [25], [26].) 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." [27]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5) Danteferno is warned not to engage in incivility or personal attacks.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.