Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Theodore7/Proposed decision

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: *User:R.Koot has done this recently on Template_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science#Reverts.
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)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: 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)
thread_title: Required edit summaries

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Temporary injunction against editing outside arbitration and user pages

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other editors?