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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Citing sources

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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:

Dmcdevit· t 00:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply
➥the Epopt 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Fred Bauder 14:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Agree with James's wording, if it makes a difference. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

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/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Leyasu.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Incivility and personal attacks

...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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

...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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Revert parole

...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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

...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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Danteferno warned

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

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:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators Information

General

Motion to close

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.

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.

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Edit warring considered harmful

Citing sources

Courtesy

Edit summaries

What vandalism is not

Consensus and ownership of articles

Proposed findings of fact

Edit warring

Incivility and personal attacks

...by Leyasu

...by Danteferno

Edit summaries for discussion

Failure to cite sources and original research

Proposed remedies

Revert parole

...on Leyasu

...on Danteferno

Leyasu placed on personal attack parole

Leyasu placed on Probation

Danteferno warned

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of parole/Probation

Discussion by Arbitrators Information

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Vote

Motions and requests by the parties

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Edit warring considered harmful

Citing sources

Courtesy

Edit summaries

What vandalism is not

Consensus and ownership of articles

Proposed findings of fact

Edit warring

Incivility and personal attacks

...by Leyasu

...by Danteferno

Edit summaries for discussion

Failure to cite sources and original research

Proposed remedies

Revert parole

...on Leyasu

...on Danteferno

Leyasu placed on personal attack parole

Leyasu placed on Probation

Danteferno warned

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of parole/Probation

Discussion by Arbitrators Information

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Vote

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook