Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reddi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

---

• (Reddi | talk | contributions)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents 1 Notes 2 Statement of the dispute 2.1 Description 2.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 2.2.1 Plasma cosmology 2.2.2 Quasi-steady state cosmology 2.2.3 Ultimate fate of the universe 2.2.4 Big Bang 2.3 Applicable policies 2.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 2.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 2.6 Other users who endorse this summary 3 Response 4 Outside view 4.1 Outside view by DDerby 5 Discussion

[edit] Notes

I think it should be noted that:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Conduct_of_User:Reddi_with_respect_to_other_editors now exists, and if accepted (its currently on 3/0/0/0 so probably will be) superceedes this
• Joshuaschroeder has left wikipedia (I don't know if it makes much difference though).

William M. Connolley 17:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User:Reddi has decided unilaterally to edit articles without explaining his edits and defying the community aspect of Wikipedia regarding consensus, assuming good faith, and the rules of engagement.

--Joshuaschroeder 22:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Description

User:Reddi has decided to revert without comment any contribution made by editors with which he disagrees on the Big Bang, Plasma cosmology, Ultimate fate of the universe, and the Quasi-steady state cosmology pages. In particular, he has refused to respond to requests to address issues on the associated talk pages of these article, insisting that I am a troll and not worthy of a response. Despite other editors asking for him to respond, he has refused while continuing to edit. He has ceased assuming good faith and has circumvented the policies of wikipedia concerning seeking consensus and negotiation.

--Joshuaschroeder 22:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Evidence of not only failure to assume good faith, but accusing one editor of trolling and explaining his refusal to respond

[edit] Plasma cosmology

1. Edit made without comment
2. Edit made without comment
3. Edit made without comment
4. Edit made without comment

[edit] Quasi-steady state cosmology

1. Edit made without comment
2. Edit made without comment
3. Edit made without comment
4. Edit made without comment
5. User's only response to the objections to his conduct

[edit] Ultimate fate of the universe

1. Edit made without comment
2. Edit made without comment

[edit] Big Bang

1. Edit made without comment

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:FAITH
2. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
3. Wikipedia:Consensus
4. Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Attempt to get response on QSS page
2. Attempt by Joshuaschroeder to get response on Plasma cosmology talk page
3. Attempt by Art Carlson to get response on Plasma cosmology talk page
4. Attempt to get a response from user directly by Joshuaschroeder
5. Attempt to get a response from user directly by Art Carlson
6. Attempt to get a response on Ultimate fate of the universe talk page

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Joshuaschroeder 22:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Art Carlson 22:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if User:Reddi has reformed, but at least he has kept quiet for a week. --Art Carlson 16:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Joke137 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Christopher Thomas 01:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC) (Endorsed with respect to Big Bang; I don't follow the other talk pages.)
2. Fredrik | tc 20:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC) (same as Christopher)
3. William M. Connolley 22:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Art LaPella 23:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Robert McClenon 15:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
6. This editor also has a habbit of steamrolling edits that contradict his POV on Iraq-related articles. 172 20:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
7. — Dan | talk 18:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

The poster of the RfC is probably more guilty of the accusations than the accused. This is ridiculous. Jon 02:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view by DDerby

I'm not convinced of Joshuaschroeder's good faith. However, that is irrelevant. As per the policies above, Reddi needs to assume a user is acting in good faith unless it is extremely obvious to you and others that he isn't in a particular instance. Joshuaschroeder had a good reason for this edit[1], and Reddi should have recognized that. You can't just revert all of JS's edits or get into revert wars with him. Endless reverts get the 'pedia nowhere.

You can't just dismiss an established user even if you think his edits are consistently problematic. Do what I did with a recent user who I perceived as POV-pushing: revert problem edits once, but no more, and always give an explanation. If there is a dispute, hash it out on the talk page, and get the input of other editors. If there is a systematic problem, tell the problem user specifically how he needs to improve, cite policy or accepted practice, and get outside input or go through mediation or something.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. DDerby-(talk) 09:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.