Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by William M. Connolley
Reddi has a fascination with fringe and psuedoscience, and in particular anything connected with Nikola Tesla. He shows great diligence in digging up obscure references; but a complete lack of judgement in what should be included within wiki, and how it should be balanced.

For example Ark of the Covenant, e.g., where he re-inserts wacky material. Note the characteristic presence of Tesla! Reddi's answer is always something like this : that because whatever it was, was said by a verifiable source, *therefore* it should be included. This is wrong (and I would hope that the arbitrators would address this point in the judgement): just because something is verifiably said by someone, doesn't mean it belongs in wiki.

I don't have time for more now; if the case drags on long enough I may return :-)


 * Reddi's Teslaphilia has persisted for more than a year. Talk:Sacred fire of Vesta may be interesting reading for those doing the evaluating, as it's not particularly technical, and provides instances of misrepresentation of sources and a lack of judgement about what is important to include in an article. (The article itself has been successfully purged of Teslomania and has remained so for some time.) - Nunh-huh 23:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Some more
Well the case *has* dragged out, and Reddi is supplying more. I don't know if this case really is in the voting phase - in which case maybe I shouldn't add more evidence - let me know.


 * Over at Brownian ratchet (which is genuine science, by Feynman, as the article explains) Reddi has made inappropriate additions . The text added is appropriate for pseudo-science perpetual motion type devices. Reddi appears not to understand that this page is about real science.
 * This appears to be pique/petulance, related to Reddis inappropriate edits to Testatika where Reddi has removed the appropriate Template:perp template (incorrectly asserting it belongs in talk), replacing it with less visible, less strong (perp says This article describes a perpetual motion machine, which violates the known laws of physics...), and weasel-words This device is believe by some scientist to describes a perpetual motion machine... that aren't even grammatically correct.

William M. Connolley 12:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by ScienceApologist

 * | Evidence of not only failure to assume good faith, but accusing one editor of trolling and explaining his refusal to respond
 * | Striketrough attempts at communication
 * | Reddi removes a 3RR warning just before being blocked for 3RR
 * | Reddi blocked for 3RR -- still no sign that he will communicate

Plasma cosmology

 * | Edit made without comment
 * | Edit made without comment
 * | Edit made without comment
 * | Edit made without comment

Quasi-steady state cosmology

 * | Edit made without comment
 * | Edit made without comment
 * | Edit made without comment
 * | Edit made without comment
 * | User's only response to the objections to his conduct

Ultimate fate of the universe

 * | Edit made without comment
 * | Edit made without comment

Big Bang

 * | Edit made without comment

Applicable policies

 * WP:FAITH
 * Talk page guidelines
 * Consensus
 * Writers' rules of engagement

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * | Attempt to get response on QSS page
 * | Attempt by Joshuaschroeder to get response on Plasma cosmology talk page
 * | Attempt by Art Carlson to get response on Plasma cosmology talk page
 * | Attempt to get a response from user directly by Joshuaschroeder
 * | Attempt to get a response from user directly by Art Carlson
 * | Attempt to get a response on Ultimate fate of the universe talk page

Evidence presented by Pjacobi
As I've said at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Workshop this may be out of scope for this RFAr, but I'll judge it as causally related.

IMHO Reddi lacks the physical insight to put things he reads on over-unity sites like http://www.cheniere.org/ in perspecticve and therefore takes their claims for face value. Most disturbing is the resulting linking to standard physics articles, which gives results ranging from slightly misleading to bizarre. On these issues conflicts with editors trying to tidy up arise.

History of perpetual motion machines

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_perpetual_motion_machines&diff=31765558&oldid=31765177
 * User:DavidWBrooks correctly unlinks regauging from the description of the SMOT.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_perpetual_motion_machines&diff=next&oldid=31765558
 * Reddi reverts, giving http://www.cheniere.org/ as evidence
 * Note that the severely misleading redirect was created by Reddi himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Regauging

Scalar field theory

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scalar_field_theory&diff=31765917&oldid=31765785
 * I unlink Waves in plasmas from Scalar field theory which is not all about plasmas. (For now I can't find the diff where Reddi inserts the link - too many edits in this article for a quick check)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FReddi_2%2FWorkshop&diff=31770332&oldid=31519201
 * Reddi ascribes the unlinking to bad faith and POV pushing.

Motionless_Electrical_Generator

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motionless_Electrical_Generator&diff=32960478&oldid=32503189
 * Removes warning and does so as "minor edit".


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.