Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2/Proposed decision

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
 * Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Competence
1) Users need to be reasonably competent with respect to the subjects of the articles they chose to edit.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming non-trivial content additions. Dmcdevit·t 05:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I'm not a Nobel-winning molecular biologist, but I can look stuff up with the best of 'em ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * While I agree, this is rather close to the tack taken by editors who defend articles by telling others they don't understand a thing about it. Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * On reconsideration, I like the point of this, but it needs rewording. This is not meant to exclude editors who are competent enough to acquaint themselves with the material. Dmcdevit·t 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends on the kinds of edits. Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 05:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 05:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Most important. Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 05:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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. | | | |


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Reddi placed on revert parole
1) Reddi shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Second choice Fred Bauder 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Dmcdevit·t 05:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't have a great affection for revert parole, but this is apt enough. Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

1.1) 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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 05:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 05:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 05:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 14:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 05:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

General
It would be helpful if there was a way to certify administrators as specialists in areas such as science. If there were, those administrators would be available in the case of situations like this. Most users, including myself, are essentially clueless regarding the appropriateness of edits in this area. Fred Bauder 16:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Appropriate edits tend to last, innapropriate ones tend to get reverted by multiple users. Bans should be for behaviour - edit warring, refusing to discuss things and so on. Anyone can spot bad behaviour. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Motion to close
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.


 * All passed. Close. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 20:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Close ➥the Epopt 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 04:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)