Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 21:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 14:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

vs.

Statement by Egil

After having spent considerable time reviewing the submitted content from Rktect since July 23 2005, esp. connected to historic metrology and geodesy, I have found it, generally speaking, wholly unacceptable. For instance, contrary to accepted knowledge [1], Rrktect claims that the exact size of the Earth was known at the time the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians defined their standards of length (3000 BC or earlier). He also subscribes to the unpublished theories of Livio Stecchini [2], that all ancient measuring systems are one, defined by each other.

With this basis, essentially all facts get distorted, especially when this is married to a totally uncritical use of historic sources, drawing all sorts of conclusions from them. In addition, the majority of the contributions are irrelevant to the topic at hand, or at best covered elsewhere. Showing disrespect for the mechanisms of Wikipedia, using bizarre markup and a lack of understanding of the level of quality required for an encyclopedia, the contributions of Rktect are unfit for Wikipedia.

There are no cites from reliable sources presented supporting any of rktects claims, although he often provides enormous amounts of irrelevant or marginally relevant text and sources.

This behaviour is not limited to historic metrology; rktect uses the same approach for other areas also (see list of articles affected, below).

Even though it may be the case that there are fractions of rktects contributions that with massive rework could be usable, filtering and reviewing is far too expensive: the amount of work grossly exceeding that of adding new bona fide fresh content. Rktects modus operandi in talk pages only adds to the problem, making discussion in the conventional sense impossible.

Bad faith can be established in a good number of cases.

I thus believe it is the best self interest of Wikipedia that rktect be not allowed to contribute, at the very least for an extended period. I see no other way of creating an environment where the current chaos can be cleaned up.

The complaint is with regards to rktects contributions as a whole. This includes, but is not limited to, his contribution to these articles:

In also includes the following articles created by rktect:

Statement by Rktect

Please limit your statement to 500 words

  • This began about August 5th with
  • 1. Egil claiming many statements of fact about mensuration were "original research".
  • 2. These charges included cites from references that were actually in their fifth printing.
  • 3. Egil claimed things were "pseudoscience" based on his own speculation and opinion but cited no facts in support of his opinions.
  • 4. He then began submitting pages for vfd by the score
  • 6. This resulted in a mediation attempt which failed
  • 7. The reason for failure was that Egil while restrained by the terms of the mediation from acting himself began contacting others and asking them to take actions on his behalf which they subsequently did.
  • 9. These contacts are documented on my and other users talk pages.
  • 10. This Group (Egil, Gene, Ken, Drini) began voting in concert on every page up for VFD
  • 11. The list of deleted pages shows up on our respective contributions pages.
  • 12 Egil has systematically attacked every contribution I have made for the last month either marking them for deletion, tagging them with disputed tages which he neglects to give reasons for, reverting them, deleting content, references, and Wikification.
  • 13. The same group still acting in concert has joined Egil in reverting, deleting content, Wikification, and references from the pages.
  • 14. These actions are not the actions of individuals acting independently in parallel with no contact between them as some might claim because the contacts and expressions of mutual support are there to be seen on their talk pages going back a month or more.
  • 15. I have asked for protection against this organized attack but have not received it.
  • 16. On one occasion while trying to protect my contributions from multiple reversions I was improperly blocked for two days for making an edit after discussion within this group.
  • 17. "I have never acted in bad faith".
  • 18. I dispute that the consensus of this group with regard to quality is well informed.
  • 19. The policy of Wikipedia is generally inclusive and the articles are not, as is often claimed by Egil all saying the same thing.
  • 20. Some were discussing fields and crop rotation.
  • 21. Some were discussing the Greek orders of architecture.
  • 22. Some were discussing the attempts of various geometers to establish standards of measure in different times and places around the world.
  • 23. Some talked about different standards of measure used by Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome. * 24. Egil and the rest of the group maintain that there is no connection between these standards of measure
  • 25. Egil and the group at the same time make the conflicting claim that they are all the same thing. Rktect 12:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Egil speculates and opines but has yet to cite any good reasons for those opinions.
  • [ standards
  • Egil allows his own personal POV, speculations, and opinions to prejudice his approach to the study of measures.
  • If this arbitration were to hinge on a debate of facts I would be happy to oblige with a thorough list of cites and references.
  • Egil repeats another false charge. It is not a copyright violation to properly quote a source.
  • This is just Egils basic lack of knowledgebase. If he thinks that these topics are adequately covered elsewhere let him say where and let me respond with what is lacking.
  • Egil lacks the knowledgebase to properly make this judgement and so do his cronies.
  • Egil should be restrained from removing properly cited and referenced content from Wikipedia or at a very minimum restrained from putting pages up for vfd with no discussion of why, on the talk page of the article, no cites, no references to support his speculations and opinions and basically just a huge lack of doing his homework. I would also ask that any group voting as a group on multiple vfd's be counted as a single vote
  • This is an admission that he is attacking on a personal level not a content based level.
  • Egil provides a list of the articles he is attacking which is essentially any article I may have made a contribution to.
  • Egil makes unsubstantiated false charges of original research, pseudoscientific content and "essentially the same content" which are not based on the article but rather the author.
  • Egil has for a month encouraged his cronies to vote as a group .
  • This is easily verified by looking at the articles deleted and the names of the people voting.
  • There would be considerably less votes for deletion if the cluster (Egil, Gene, Ken, Drini) were counted as a single vote and it were taken into account that by voting as a block they give a false impression of consensus which may be misleading to others.
  • The facts and the math were eroneous and required substantial work to clean up. Mouton is an important person to discuss on Wikipedia, but it is not useful to have a POV article about him with many unreferenced and eristic comments.
  • After suffering a constant stream of reverts by drini on every contribution I made without regard to content, often deleting wikification and references as well as content, and with no attempt by him to communicate on the discussion page I looked at his contributions page and saw there was nothing on it but reverts and concluded he was a vandal and pest.
  • As a new user I did not realize that was set in my preferences or important until someone remarked on it. Generally I attempt to respond to all constructive criticism with a modification of my behavior.


Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

No personal attacks

1) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile enviroment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encylopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality).

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

No original research

2) Wikipedia is not the venue for publishing of otherwise unpublished original research; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, expounded in Wikipedia:No original research.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith editing

3) Users should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; that is, users should not act in bad faith. Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes aganist established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

4) The MediaWiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. Should disputes arise, editors are expected to engage in research and discussion with other users, and to make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Obsessional point of view

5) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Efforts to establish a particular point of view sometimes result in violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability as efforts are made to support an eccentric POV.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of references

6) Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

7) Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits; providing misleading edit summaries, as well as misuse of the minor edit flag, is considered uncivil and bad wikiquette.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

Detailed unsourced information inserted by Rktect

1) Rktect ( talk · contribs) has created a large number of articles which contain a great deal of detailed, but unsourced, information regarding ancient weights and measures, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Evidence#Consensus_as_to_unsuitability_for_Wikipedia.2C_based_on_VfD. Many of these have been deleted.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sweeping assertions inserted by Rktect

2) Rktect ( talk · contribs) has sometimes inserted unsourced anachronistic material such as this assertion that the mile "Miles and stadia have been intended to be unit divisions of a degree of the Earth's great circle circumference since they were first defined as standards of measure by the rope stretchers of Mesopotamia and Egypt" [3]. These assertions seem related to the theories of Livio Catullo Stecchini.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of references by Rktect

3) Rktect ( talk · contribs) often cites a laundry list of general references which have no specific relationship with any particular item of information; see [4] and a user's comment [5].

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Rktect

4) Rktect ( talk · contribs) has reverted reversions of vandalism by editors he was in a dispute with [6], [7], and has admitted that this was in order to prove a point [8].

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

Rktect banned from weights and measures

1) Rktect ( talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology).

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

  • 24 October 2005, Carnildo blocked Rktect with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎(Violation of ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect on multiple articles)
  • 3 July 2007, JzG blocked Rktect with an expiry time of 48 hours (Giving people a break)
  • 8 August 2007, Garzo blocked Rktect with an expiry time of 72 hours (Inserting misinformation: has been warned repeatedly about original research)
  • 27 September 2007, Neil blocked Rktect with an expiry time of 1 week ‎(Multiple violations of ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect)


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect&oldid=1079520476"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 21:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 14:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

vs.

Statement by Egil

After having spent considerable time reviewing the submitted content from Rktect since July 23 2005, esp. connected to historic metrology and geodesy, I have found it, generally speaking, wholly unacceptable. For instance, contrary to accepted knowledge [1], Rrktect claims that the exact size of the Earth was known at the time the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians defined their standards of length (3000 BC or earlier). He also subscribes to the unpublished theories of Livio Stecchini [2], that all ancient measuring systems are one, defined by each other.

With this basis, essentially all facts get distorted, especially when this is married to a totally uncritical use of historic sources, drawing all sorts of conclusions from them. In addition, the majority of the contributions are irrelevant to the topic at hand, or at best covered elsewhere. Showing disrespect for the mechanisms of Wikipedia, using bizarre markup and a lack of understanding of the level of quality required for an encyclopedia, the contributions of Rktect are unfit for Wikipedia.

There are no cites from reliable sources presented supporting any of rktects claims, although he often provides enormous amounts of irrelevant or marginally relevant text and sources.

This behaviour is not limited to historic metrology; rktect uses the same approach for other areas also (see list of articles affected, below).

Even though it may be the case that there are fractions of rktects contributions that with massive rework could be usable, filtering and reviewing is far too expensive: the amount of work grossly exceeding that of adding new bona fide fresh content. Rktects modus operandi in talk pages only adds to the problem, making discussion in the conventional sense impossible.

Bad faith can be established in a good number of cases.

I thus believe it is the best self interest of Wikipedia that rktect be not allowed to contribute, at the very least for an extended period. I see no other way of creating an environment where the current chaos can be cleaned up.

The complaint is with regards to rktects contributions as a whole. This includes, but is not limited to, his contribution to these articles:

In also includes the following articles created by rktect:

Statement by Rktect

Please limit your statement to 500 words

  • This began about August 5th with
  • 1. Egil claiming many statements of fact about mensuration were "original research".
  • 2. These charges included cites from references that were actually in their fifth printing.
  • 3. Egil claimed things were "pseudoscience" based on his own speculation and opinion but cited no facts in support of his opinions.
  • 4. He then began submitting pages for vfd by the score
  • 6. This resulted in a mediation attempt which failed
  • 7. The reason for failure was that Egil while restrained by the terms of the mediation from acting himself began contacting others and asking them to take actions on his behalf which they subsequently did.
  • 9. These contacts are documented on my and other users talk pages.
  • 10. This Group (Egil, Gene, Ken, Drini) began voting in concert on every page up for VFD
  • 11. The list of deleted pages shows up on our respective contributions pages.
  • 12 Egil has systematically attacked every contribution I have made for the last month either marking them for deletion, tagging them with disputed tages which he neglects to give reasons for, reverting them, deleting content, references, and Wikification.
  • 13. The same group still acting in concert has joined Egil in reverting, deleting content, Wikification, and references from the pages.
  • 14. These actions are not the actions of individuals acting independently in parallel with no contact between them as some might claim because the contacts and expressions of mutual support are there to be seen on their talk pages going back a month or more.
  • 15. I have asked for protection against this organized attack but have not received it.
  • 16. On one occasion while trying to protect my contributions from multiple reversions I was improperly blocked for two days for making an edit after discussion within this group.
  • 17. "I have never acted in bad faith".
  • 18. I dispute that the consensus of this group with regard to quality is well informed.
  • 19. The policy of Wikipedia is generally inclusive and the articles are not, as is often claimed by Egil all saying the same thing.
  • 20. Some were discussing fields and crop rotation.
  • 21. Some were discussing the Greek orders of architecture.
  • 22. Some were discussing the attempts of various geometers to establish standards of measure in different times and places around the world.
  • 23. Some talked about different standards of measure used by Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome. * 24. Egil and the rest of the group maintain that there is no connection between these standards of measure
  • 25. Egil and the group at the same time make the conflicting claim that they are all the same thing. Rktect 12:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Egil speculates and opines but has yet to cite any good reasons for those opinions.
  • [ standards
  • Egil allows his own personal POV, speculations, and opinions to prejudice his approach to the study of measures.
  • If this arbitration were to hinge on a debate of facts I would be happy to oblige with a thorough list of cites and references.
  • Egil repeats another false charge. It is not a copyright violation to properly quote a source.
  • This is just Egils basic lack of knowledgebase. If he thinks that these topics are adequately covered elsewhere let him say where and let me respond with what is lacking.
  • Egil lacks the knowledgebase to properly make this judgement and so do his cronies.
  • Egil should be restrained from removing properly cited and referenced content from Wikipedia or at a very minimum restrained from putting pages up for vfd with no discussion of why, on the talk page of the article, no cites, no references to support his speculations and opinions and basically just a huge lack of doing his homework. I would also ask that any group voting as a group on multiple vfd's be counted as a single vote
  • This is an admission that he is attacking on a personal level not a content based level.
  • Egil provides a list of the articles he is attacking which is essentially any article I may have made a contribution to.
  • Egil makes unsubstantiated false charges of original research, pseudoscientific content and "essentially the same content" which are not based on the article but rather the author.
  • Egil has for a month encouraged his cronies to vote as a group .
  • This is easily verified by looking at the articles deleted and the names of the people voting.
  • There would be considerably less votes for deletion if the cluster (Egil, Gene, Ken, Drini) were counted as a single vote and it were taken into account that by voting as a block they give a false impression of consensus which may be misleading to others.
  • The facts and the math were eroneous and required substantial work to clean up. Mouton is an important person to discuss on Wikipedia, but it is not useful to have a POV article about him with many unreferenced and eristic comments.
  • After suffering a constant stream of reverts by drini on every contribution I made without regard to content, often deleting wikification and references as well as content, and with no attempt by him to communicate on the discussion page I looked at his contributions page and saw there was nothing on it but reverts and concluded he was a vandal and pest.
  • As a new user I did not realize that was set in my preferences or important until someone remarked on it. Generally I attempt to respond to all constructive criticism with a modification of my behavior.


Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

No personal attacks

1) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile enviroment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encylopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality).

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

No original research

2) Wikipedia is not the venue for publishing of otherwise unpublished original research; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, expounded in Wikipedia:No original research.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith editing

3) Users should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; that is, users should not act in bad faith. Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes aganist established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Compromise

4) The MediaWiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. Should disputes arise, editors are expected to engage in research and discussion with other users, and to make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Obsessional point of view

5) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Efforts to establish a particular point of view sometimes result in violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability as efforts are made to support an eccentric POV.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of references

6) Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

7) Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits; providing misleading edit summaries, as well as misuse of the minor edit flag, is considered uncivil and bad wikiquette.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

Detailed unsourced information inserted by Rktect

1) Rktect ( talk · contribs) has created a large number of articles which contain a great deal of detailed, but unsourced, information regarding ancient weights and measures, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Evidence#Consensus_as_to_unsuitability_for_Wikipedia.2C_based_on_VfD. Many of these have been deleted.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sweeping assertions inserted by Rktect

2) Rktect ( talk · contribs) has sometimes inserted unsourced anachronistic material such as this assertion that the mile "Miles and stadia have been intended to be unit divisions of a degree of the Earth's great circle circumference since they were first defined as standards of measure by the rope stretchers of Mesopotamia and Egypt" [3]. These assertions seem related to the theories of Livio Catullo Stecchini.

Passed 6 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of references by Rktect

3) Rktect ( talk · contribs) often cites a laundry list of general references which have no specific relationship with any particular item of information; see [4] and a user's comment [5].

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Rktect

4) Rktect ( talk · contribs) has reverted reversions of vandalism by editors he was in a dispute with [6], [7], and has admitted that this was in order to prove a point [8].

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

Rktect banned from weights and measures

1) Rktect ( talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology).

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

  • 24 October 2005, Carnildo blocked Rktect with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎(Violation of ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect on multiple articles)
  • 3 July 2007, JzG blocked Rktect with an expiry time of 48 hours (Giving people a break)
  • 8 August 2007, Garzo blocked Rktect with an expiry time of 72 hours (Inserting misinformation: has been warned repeatedly about original research)
  • 27 September 2007, Neil blocked Rktect with an expiry time of 1 week ‎(Multiple violations of ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect)


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect&oldid=1079520476"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE