Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Review

message: === Comment by Sean William ===
As Ideogram pointed out, Certified.Gangsta has been neatly dodging his 1RR sanction by reverting randomly on various Taiwan related articles. An extra remedy might be in order, but I don't believe that a full case would be the most efficient way of solving this. Sean William @ 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-party comments on case acceptance

message: As Ideogram pointed out, Certified.Gangsta has been neatly dodging his 1RR sanction by reverting randomly on various Taiwan related articles. An extra remedy might be in order, but I don't believe that a full case would be the most efficient way of solving this. Sean William @ 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Sean William 

message: Hmm... I'd say we need to add in another remedy, something on a maximum number of total reverts in a day or week period, as opposed to "per article". It probabyl doesn't need to be reopened if something can be decided on this page.--Wizardman 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Wizardman 

message: I've been requested to comment on this request.  To my recollection, I have not been involved in any of the articles that Ideogram has listed above.  But Certified.Gangsta does revert on List of Chinese Americans, which I've edited before.  While I am neutral to the content that he keeps reverting, I do notice that he is making no more attempts at discussion in the Talk page of the article before he reverts.  But he does stay within the boundaries of 1 revert per week on the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by HongQiGong 

message: I've been asked to comment on this request. My only run in with Certified.Gangsta was on Double Ten Day, which resulted in a RfC here. I opened that RfC after he made a baseless accusation of "pov-pushing" against me and reverted my edit twice. He did not respond on the RfC, which in the end reached a consensus in support of my edit. Wl219 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Wl219 

message: Unless I'm missing something, this page should be located at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Review, as that is where the original case was. Sean William @ 01:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I based the pagename on the scope of the case that the arbitrators seemed to be accepting, plus the original name with "/Review" appended was excessively long. If any of the arbitrators or other arbitration clerks wish the pages moved that is not a problem. In general, the focus should be on the substance of the matter rather than the casename. Newyorkbrad 01:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm also posting to our clerks' noticeboard for a second opinion. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be a subpage of the relevant case that is being reviewed.  (Fred invented the format for Waldorf.) Thatcher131 16:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect location 

message: Since I can't post them on the main page since it works as a proposed decision, I'll post them here. Some of my proposed ones.
===Three-revert rule===
1) The three-revert rule is in place not to have an arbitrary benchmark so much as to be a general warning against edit warring.
===Assuming good faith===
2) Users who engage in revert wars and disruptive editing are generally not assuming good faith in the other user.
===Discussion===
3) When making controversial edits, or even uncontroversial edits on a heavily discussed topic, it is strongly recommended that these changes be discussed, hence a consensus can be reached if the edits aren't accepted.
I'll look more into the case to add in the other two. Discuss as you will. Wizardman 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For #3, how about "3.1) While editors are encouraged to be bold when updating articles, they should be prepared to discuss their edits when challenged, and should consider preemptively discussing edits to controversial or heavily discussed topics."  The importance of discussion is still central (IMO), but the importance of being bold is noted.  --Iamunknown 07:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds better, imo. Wizardman 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Principles 

message: 3) When making controversial edits, or even uncontroversial edits on a heavily discussed topic, it is strongly recommended that these changes be discussed, hence a consensus can be reached if the edits aren't accepted.
I'll look more into the case to add in the other two. Discuss as you will. Wizardman 22:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For #3, how about "3.1) While editors are encouraged to be bold when updating articles, they should be prepared to discuss their edits when challenged, and should consider preemptively discussing edits to controversial or heavily discussed topics."  The importance of discussion is still central (IMO), but the importance of being bold is noted.  --Iamunknown 07:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds better, imo. Wizardman 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion