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.
1)
1)
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.
2) Editors are expected to cite sources for information they add to articles, especially content of a controversial nature.
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.
4) Editors are expected to behave in a civil manner towards other editors. (See Wikipedia:Civility.)
5) When reverting, the edit summary should explicitly state that the edit is a revert. Edit summaries should not be used for discussion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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].)
2) Danteferno and Leyasu used edit summaries extensively as a mode of discussion throughout this period. (Random diffs: [8], [9], [10], [11].)
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].)
4) Leyasu has made personal attacks on Danteferno. (Diff: [19].)
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].)
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) {text of proposed remedy}
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.
2) Leyasu and Danteferno are limited to a maximum of one revert per page per day for six months.
3) Leyasu is limited to a maximum of one revert per page per day for six months.
4) Danteferno is limited to a maximum of one revert per page per day for six months.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
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.
1)
1)
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.
2) Editors are expected to cite sources for information they add to articles, especially content of a controversial nature.
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.
4) Editors are expected to behave in a civil manner towards other editors. (See Wikipedia:Civility.)
5) When reverting, the edit summary should explicitly state that the edit is a revert. Edit summaries should not be used for discussion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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].)
2) Danteferno and Leyasu used edit summaries extensively as a mode of discussion throughout this period. (Random diffs: [8], [9], [10], [11].)
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].)
4) Leyasu has made personal attacks on Danteferno. (Diff: [19].)
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].)
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) {text of proposed remedy}
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.
2) Leyasu and Danteferno are limited to a maximum of one revert per page per day for six months.
3) Leyasu is limited to a maximum of one revert per page per day for six months.
4) Danteferno is limited to a maximum of one revert per page per day for six months.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis