Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2

See also Requests for arbitration/Reddi

Case Opened on 21:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 06:39, 11 February 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.

Complaining witnesses

 * , name change from
 * , name change from

Statement by Joshuaschroeder
Please limit your statement to 500 words

I have been involved in a number of articles concerning how to report on non-standard cosmology here on Wikipedia. User:Reddi has determined that my work is trollish and he has made it clear that he will not engage me but instead will simply revert every edit I make on the articles listed in the RfC. He has struck-through my comments on his talkpage asking for him to respond to me claiming that he doesn't deal with trolls. I have no other place to turn to at this moment as he refuses to engage me on the talkpages or on the RfC and seems content to continue his inappropriate actions here at Wikipedia.

--Joshuaschroeder 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Jossifresco
Please limit your statement to 500 words

I protected the Plasma cosmology article on November 5, due to editwarring, personal attacks and lack of civility in the discussions at the talk page. After a new editor, a subject expert matter joined the editing process (Eric Lerner User:Elerner), and after what I perceived to be a show of good faith by participating editors, I unprotected the article on November 6. Notwithstanding User:Reddi's behavior in not responding to questions by a fellow editor, as a neutral observer I am surprised this interpersonal problem between User:Joshuaschroeder and other editors has arrived to the ArbCom without exploring other avenues for dispute resolution. I received personal email from some one of the editors involved, stating that he is giving up contributing to this article (and probably others) due to the relentless involvement of User:Joshuaschroeder in the editing process. We need passionate editors that care, but sometimes too much passion may elicit the wrong type of response from editors that otherwise are quite happy to engage and collaborate in the editing process with others. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 00:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also note RfC's by  User:Joshuaschroeder and User:Joke137 dated Nov 21st against two editors involved in this dispute:
 * Requests for comment/Reddi
 * Requests for comment/Elerner
 * Why do we need arbitration two days after a user's RfCs against User:Reddi has been posted by User:Joshuaschroeder? Let these run their course, and then seek mediation if still unsastisfied. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I escalated this to the RfA status so soon is because User:Reddi refused to engage me on the RfC (he struckthrough my comments about both that and this RfC) while continuing to edit articles. Subsequently, Reddi has been banned for 3RR and has continued to refuse to address me directly. He has gone as far as to change my posts on talkpages to say something completely different. What evidence is there that he will engage me? He has explicitly claimed that he wouldn't. Joshuaschroeder 05:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Read Wikipedia's dispute resolution official policy and note that Arbitration is the last resort. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 06:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Informal Mediation
 * Discuss with third parties (e.g. RfC)
 * Mediation
 * Requesting an advocate
 * Last resort: Arbitration


 * Maybe you should read the evidence I presented that User:Reddi has out-and-out refused to talk and continues to revert and edit articles without using the talkpages. Arbitration is a last resort when there is evidence that other dispute resolution processes won't work. You haven't addressed the evidence I've laid out above. In fact, you've been fairly unresponsive to evidence I've laid out during this entire fiasco. --Joshuaschroeder 17:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your perceived unresponsiveness to your evidence on my part is based on the fact that nontwithstanding the lack of response by User:Reddi, you have (a) yet to wait to see if the RfC yields changes in attitude; (b) you can explore mediation if the RfC fails to produce such change ; and (c) you can request the assistance of an advocate. Only then, if all three dispute resolution processes fail to produce satisfactory results, you can submit the case to Arbitration. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 19:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have evidence that User:Reddi was not responsive to the RfC as he continued to edit articles in the same fashion. He then proceded to cross-out every attempt that I made to communicate with him. I already have other people trying to help me (one of whom User:Joke137 has decided to stop editting due to the interminable conflicts). This has been ongoing for some time, and it isn't the first time that User:Reddi's conduct has been pointed out to this body. There is plenty of evidence above showing why I resorted to this since informal advocacy seems to be getting us nowhere (see the work of Art Carlson and your half-hearted attempt at moderation) did not engage Reddi's reticence. Therefore The RfArb is what is left to appeal to. --Joshuaschroeder 20:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have said all I could in my statement above and in responding tou your comments.. Now it is up to the ArbCom to decide if to hear this case or not. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 21:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Joke137
Let me summarize my view of this whole debacle. Since I haven't edited much in a week or so, I'm inclined to be a little windy.

There has been a longtime dispute about the meaning of the NPOV policy on pages related to cosmology. There has been a détente of sorts for a long time on the big bang page (mostly because a lot of people have it on their watchlists), but various pages on minority views of cosmology – like the Electric Universe model, non-standard cosmology, quasi-steady state theory and plasma cosmology – and other pages such as redshift have been of poor quality, unclear and the subject of frequent edit wars. ScienceApologist has been one of the principal users trying to take the authors of these pages to task, and I don't envy him the job, but it has resulted in a number of sterile edit wars. Prominent examples are the stupefying discussion at redshift, at plasma cosmology and, I assume, at the electric universe model.

Recently Eric Lerner, one of the two most prominent living advocates of plasma cosmology, joined Wikipedia as Elerner. He made this edit at plasma cosmology. This was greeted with positive responses by ScienceApologist and myself. Eric Lerner's initial comment at the talk page presages what happens next: he tries to take possession of the page and threatens to appeal to the moderators if his wishes are not obeyed. Lerner has completely rewritten the article, with very good results. However, when disagreements have arisen, he seems insensible to compromise. My three efforts to write a compromise introduction, and  were reverted and met with hostile, uncivil responses ,  and. I hadn't come into conflict with any editor on the page, nor made any controversial edits, at this point. (I did ask some questions, out of genuine interest, about the model.) It was uncivil. It is well known amongst cosmology editors that I think the evidence for the big bang is very, very strong, but I have also been able to achieve compromise on some of these articles, such as non-standard cosmology (and responses on talk ) and responses to my first version of the plasma cosmology introduction from Iantresman  and from JDR  (although JDR says my view still lacks "absolute neutrality", without pointing out what problems exist!). Although Lerner was able to finish his rewrite, things on the plasma cosmology page degenerated from there.

Well into the plasma cosmology debate, on the big bang page, Lerner made this edit and this comment on the talk page. It was hard to see the talk page comment as anything more than goading someone into reverting him, which I did with only a nominal comment on talk  which came much later. In retrospect, this was a mistake. In any case, this led to a long discussion and revert war on Big Bang in which we argued over what NPOV means. Basically, the primarily use of the NPOV policy on the Talk:Big Bang page has been reduced to a bludgeon, with which we can hit each other repeatedly. It got depressing to look at my last two hundred edits and see that in that time I'd done very little to improve Wikipedia, and so I've stopped editing.

In my view, there are two issues:
 * 1) Nobody who is neutral and has any authority has made any effort to use their authority to tell Elerner when he is out of line! See his RFC. Jossifresco did nothing to that effect, and so Elerner is still making uncivil remarks like  (see the last paragraph),,  and . The constant threats to get people banned show very bad faith. He is new to Wikipedia, so this is all completely understandable, and his contributions to plasma cosmology are very, very valuable. But instead of being obsequious, can someone explain Wikiquette? Because when I try to do it, it just looks like lawyering.
 * 2) The NPOV policy provides very little guidance as to what to do in some situations. This is mentioned in the policy, under "there's no such thing as objectivity". Let me quote:
 * If there's anything possibly contentious about the policy along these lines, it is the implication that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion). It is an empirical question, not a philosophical one, whether this is possible. [That] such a thing is indeed possible is evident simply by observing that such texts are being written daily by the most capable academics, encyclopedists, textbook writers, and journalists.
 * I strongly disagree with the last sentence. I don't think it is at all evident. Textbooks are usually written by only a few authors. I know of cases where books failed because two people couldn't agree what to put in them! The relevant Wikipedia policy here is consensus, and bashing each other with the NPOV-stick doesn't help too much. I think this problem is pretty widespread. On a somewhat unrelated note, what's the point of this crap ?

So here I've described what I think is the context of this RfArb. I hardly said a damn thing about Reddi, who is, after all the subject of this whole thing, but I explained the issues that have been disturbing me. Reddi having branded ScienceApologist a troll and refusing to interact with him was indeed obnoxious, but it was really not much different – in practice – than what had been happening before. Just to show that ScienceApologist was not the only target of this sort of behavior, see his edit to large-scale structure of the cosmos which I reverted  with an explanation on talk. Reddi then restored his unreferenced, misspelled, ungrammatical, out-of-place addition, which I moved and corrected. Reddi did not then revert, but instead reintroduced the spelling and grammar errors, I reverted, he reverted, etc...

If the arbitrators think this is inappropriate for an RfArb, it being kind of tangential and all, please just delete it and leave a message on my talk page, and I will fix it. I may not be around much the next few days, though. –Joke137 06:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Pjacobi
While only tangentially involved in this dispute with Reddi, I cannot help but give a supporting statement for Joshuaschroeder and Joke137 which have been harassed by Reddi [], []. I'd be very sad if they really decide to leave because of this.

Reddi is on mission to give minority or fringe views in science greater weight in Wikipedia. This mission has its legitimate part, as we want to document all knowledge, but it also has (in my not so humble opinion) an illegitimate part, if these views start to invade the main articles in the field and are presented in way, which may mislead our readers. I've met Reddi all over since starting to edit Wikipedia, beginning with Testatika (which I voted to keep BTW), later the Tesla related stuff, recently in Motionless Electrical Generator. Mostly I had the impression of good (bad ill-directed) faith, so his behaviour in this case came rather as surprise.

The background for all this is IMHO, that there is simmering, undecided problem with clarification of NPOV in scientific topics. Is it right for Wikipedia to present the topic as seen by academic science, including minority views, but establishing the consensus view if this is quite clear. Or would this be presenting an academic POV, as Reddi never gets tired to protest? Can we rely on the scientific process, with it's visible results like academic text books, peer-reviewed journal articles, citation counts, or is this censuring?

Pjacobi 11:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley
William M. Connolley 21:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC) (I endorse Pjacobi's statement (every word of it); not sure if its appropriate for me to; remove if not)

Statement by linas
I have not been inolved in this dispute, but am watching this arbitration. I have general credentials in physics (PhD) and have shared offices with cosmologists at several times in my life. I am not (yet) watching various WP cosmology pages. linas 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by WAS 4.250
Eric Lerner (BA in physics. Not MA. Not Ph.D) is associated with plasma physics and plasma cosmology. His level of expertise is controversial. 

He knows more physics than 99% of wikipedians and less physics than at least 99% of Ph.D. physicists. I welcome sourced contributions from him.

But he makes money in his activities related to controversial physics hypothosis widely debunked by real physicists. You know. The kind that publish research or make theoretical predictions in peer reviewed proffessional literature. Therefore his contributions should be viewed as sometimes, just sometimes, perhaps related. WAS 4.250 18:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

 * Accept. James F. (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept ➥the Epopt 23:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 15:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Jayjg (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Charles Matthews 08:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 08:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Users may be banned
2) A user may be banned from articles which they disrupt by edit warring or other behavior.


 * Passed 6-0

Consensus
3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject.


 * Passed 6-0

Edit warring harmful
4) Chronic edit warring is harmful to Wikipedia. Excessive reversions may lead to imposition of a ban under the Three revert rule or more substantial restrictions. See also Edit war.


 * Passed 6-0

Disruptive editing by Reddi
1) Reddi's edits to some science articles have been disruptive, see Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop and subsequent proposed findings.


 * Passed 6-0

Uncommunicative
2) Reddi frequently makes controversial edits or reverts without using adequate edit summaries or justification on the talk page. He is unresponsive to requests for such responses. | | | |


 * Passed 6-0

Edit warring
3) Reddi has engaged in edit warring in multiple articles, including Timeline of the Universe, Plasma cosmology, Ultimate fate of the universe, and others.


 * Passed 6-0

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.

Reddi placed on revert parole
1) Reddi shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.


 * Passed 6-0

Reddi placed on probation
2) Reddi is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned from any article by any administrator for good cause. Each ban shall be recorded together with the reason at Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2. A notice shall be placed on the talk page of the article and Reddi shall be notified.


 * Passed 6-0

Extensions of parole or probation
3) Any three administrators, for good cause, may extend either Reddi's ban or probation in one year increments. Any extension shall be documented at Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2.


 * Passed 6-0

Enforcement by block
1) Violations of the remedies imposed on Reddi shall be enforced by brief blocks, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks are automatically recorded at but should also be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2


 * Passed 6-0

Log of blocks and bans
Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information should include name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
 * I blocked Reddi for 24 hours for violating his revert parole at Nikola Tesla. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)