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.

Involved parties[edit]

Summary of case[edit]

Dispute between two users that has disintergrated into a flame war due to no adminstrative interference, leading one party to make personal attacks at any users editing an article the user has claimed as belonging to themselfs, vandalising a revision that was performed to the article reached by a consensus after a long discussion. User now vandalising page and exhbiting MPOV syptoms, and harrasing and attacking anyone who enters discussion on the talk page.

Statement by Leyasu[edit]

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.

In regards to Idont's statements. I would like to point out that most arguments that ive been involved in, have normally not come into flame wars, or have been arguments of differing POV which both I and the User have settled ourselfs, with no hard feelings. The mediation case was a misunderstanding in my eyes, and i duely apologised for the way i spoke to the user concerned as i hadnt realised they disliked certain terms i used. Other incidents have mainly been minor issues in ideologies of methods of editing, and the most severe concern the Nightwish article, which, i made my view clear on, and the issue was resolved. In that case i removed inline citations on the pretense of RFA, without realising that inline citations are expected of RFA which other users involved in the discussion explained to me. I am in heavy dispute with user Aj Ramierz/WesleyDodds as such over several articles, but this user knows i respect him, and most of our disagreements are again over methods of editing, and differences in the way we would each individually tackle a problem. Leyasu 06:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw attention to slander that user Danteferno has begun about me to other users i have been in debate with before. The link is Here. Leyasu 12:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from LGangon to Idont concerning myself is listed Here. Might i add, that consensus was reached by another editor and two admins that LGangon was wrong, and that i have only called two users Meglomanical who have both claimed they own the articles and others dont have the right to edit them without their permission, near mirroring the others behaviour. Admin [[Snowflake and WesleyDodds were also involved in the argument, and both will give honest and fair opinions of all users involved. Leyasu 13:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment on this, but now that you are libeling me I might as well defend myself. The consensus was not that I was wrong, it was that there would be a compromise between me and Wesley. That compromise took so long to reach because you were throwing around personal attacks while we were trying to handle it civilly. You were wrong because you refused to cite sources; thus your opinion was never added to the article.

Also, I never claimed I owned the article; that was more stuff you made up to libel me with. My claim was that the article was "mostly written by me" (which, if you look at the edit history, is a fact; it went from a 3 page article to a 12 page one during my work on it).

I didn't say anything about permission either. I asked you to cite some sources that back your claims, and you refused. The only thing I wouldn't let you add to the article is unverifiable information, which is all you had. -- LGagnon 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was decided and ordered by Admin Snowflake. We would all contribute in part to a statement that would go into the article. You were the only person who objected this. Also, me and Wesley provided the same sources. I didnt refuse to provide any, as i made it perfectly clear i was supporting Wesley's argument. Also, when Wesley openly cites sources, them sources come free for anyone, so it is legible for anyone to cite those sources for the same puprose as Wesley did. You also said to Wesley that he too, wasnt allowed to edit the article. I was part of that discussion, and you constantly hosed me with attacks, that you were warned for, by the same admin who warned me. I will also remind you that you too were banned for 3RR.

On another note, IDont accused me of slinging mud at Danteferno. As such, since the opening of the Abbiration case, Dante has been slandering me to other users. This link Here shows user Danteferno trying to stir up animosity in a meidation case i was involved in, that has been closed and was solved with a simple apology. Leyasu 03:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, lies. You didn't provide sources; you copied and pasted the first 4 or 5 results on Google in a search for "grunge" (one of which was a mirror of the article). Those weren't real sources, because they didn't back your argument, so they weren't counted. I didn't object to going by the rules; I was trying to all along. You were the only one objecting. And I didn't tell Wesley he couldn't edit the article; I even asked him to add things. And yes, I was given a temp ban for 3RR, but that was because I was sick of having the situation ignore by the admins. The normal means of getting their attention wasn't working, and they refused to get involved until the situation looked serious (which it already did beforehand). -- LGagnon 16:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Danteferno[edit]

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.

Regarding User:Parasti - after I placed the tags on the Gothic Metal article (mentioned above), this user appeared out of nowhere and reverted them off, claiming that concensus was reached in the discussion (it was not, nor did User:Parasti have any prior participation in the discussion.)

Since, User:Parasti has appeared periodically in Talk:Gothic metal and elsewhere, mostly defending User:Leyasu and User:Leyasu's positions without regard to what User:Leyasu is doing - for instance, User:Parasti defended User:Leyasu for calling me "ignorant", and after it was explained that none of User:Leyasu's "sources" supported the claims he made, User:Parasti went on to question my character for not considering them, as if that wasn't gone over a bunch of times (See the Talk:Gothic metal thread on Gothic Metal/Rewrite)

I won't make any assumptions about this user's intentions - however, I will say that User:Leyasu had been pointed out by me and User:Idont havaname for using sockpuppets to support himself earlier in the Gothic metal discussion.[2]

Despite an issue from months ago, I think this would still be very relevant now, considering different problems that still persist with ::User:Leyasu.

When asked for proof and reasoning behind me using sockpuppets, the answer i got was Because i said so. The user could not show i was using sock puppets nor could he give example of how i did so. Apparantly this is clear of me using sock puppets in the fact i have a set Ip, yet when the ip of the other users is checked, they are all different. I also warned Parasti before that Danteferno would make accusations of him being a sock puppet if he didnt agree, which is User_talk:Parasti#.22No_Discussion.22_does_not_equal_Concensus. On the accusation that Parasti is a sock puppet, ill point out i first bumped into the user when sorting out Catagorys on musical albums and artsists, and as such we pooled efforts to do it faster, as sharing the oars makes the river seem shorter. This can be checked, perfectly easily im sure. Leyasu 03:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parasti[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Idont Havaname[edit]

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))[reply]

Leyasu has received 2 12-hour blocks, rather than the standard 24 hours, for separate 3RR violations.

These 12-hour blocks were made by different admins for the same 3RR violation on the same article, as seen in the log. Izehar applied the second block 30 minutes after Woohookitty, and didn't notify the user of it, apparently because Woohookitty already had done it. LGagnon was also blocked for the same violation. -- parasti ^(talk) 12:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/0/0)[edit]

Accept. James F. (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Dmcdevit·t 16:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ➥the Epopt 03:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 08:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Edit warring considered harmful[edit]

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.