Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Six-month ban from editing content on astrology, astronomy, and related subjects

It should be clarified whether this would include adding (or moving around so as to make more prominent) astrological content in topics not generally perceived as astrological or astronomical, like algorithm. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Added. Neutralitytalk

Part (c) seems to be inconsistent with the topic heading:

(c) Theodore7 (talk • contribs) may appeal the provision in two months. If this appeal is denied, he may appeal every two months thereafter until the one-year ban period has elapsed. [emphasis added] —Pradeep Arya (Talk | Contrib) 20:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

For what its worth, I would suggest a shorter or nonexistent ban from articles and a rather strict reversion probation. Many believe Theodore7 has a lot of domain knowledge to offer the community. The ban may run him off for good. Even if he were to return from a prolonged ban, some kind of reversion probation would probably be necessary at that point. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: I propose that the only ban should be (a) on all parties and to (b) ban them from their ability to make identical reverts for a period of time and to (c) not ban their ability to edit any article. Facts in support of this suggestion:

  • This is open content. A ban on the ability to edit suggests this is not open content.
  • A solution is to have software based bubble diagrams. Help users plan changes and point out wanted changes. Open content leads to avoidance of the issues - intentional or unintentional. The bubble diagrams would help track issues. It could be as simple as the likeness of a ticket tracker. It doesn't remove open content in anyway, but it provides an extra tool. For example, if a change is made and somebody objects to the change, the software automatically makes a "bubble" to work on with its own sub-page. — Dzonatas 20:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Some users have tried to illustrate their point instead of simply being able to state their point more directly.

I also liken to the refactor bit. Wikipedia isn't a garbage dump, and wikipedians aren't dump trucks. — Dzonatas 22:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Required edit summaries

There seems to be a mistake in this section, a sentence copied verbatim from the previous section. I'm unsure of what kind of violation with regard to edit summaries that admins are supposed to block for. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Temporary injunction against editing outside arbitration and user pages

Does this temporary injunction need 8 support votes to be passed, just like the permanent remedies? Or are there different majority rules for temporary measures? It seems to me that there ought to be, since the temporary ban is supposed to run during the arbitration. Its usefulness will obviously be over once the permanent remedies are in place. Is it really likely to gather 8 votes much faster than the permanent remedies (even though admittedly it now has four as against two)? Bishonen | talk 18:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC).

Aha, I just noticed it does indeed say "Four net "support" votes needed to pass " at the top of the temporary injunctions section. So does that mean the injunction is now in force? Mind you, Theodore7 won't know about it until it's posted on his page (if indeed then, as he seems prone to miss stuff on it). Bishonen | talk 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC).
If it makes a difference now, the measure is enforced from the moment someone notifies him. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other editors?

As Theo has complained about the behavior of others, including newbie biting and such, I think that perhaps the ArbCom should put a finding of fact regarding the behavior of those of us who were involved in the dispute, trying to help Theo. Bunchofgrapes and Bishonen especially, in my mind, have done a great job trying to help Theo; just look at his talk page and the comments there. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)