This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed final decision Information
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Obsessional point of view
1) 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 Neutral point of view. Efforts to establish a particular point of view sometimes results in violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability as efforts are made to support an eccentric POV.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Essentially this is a violation of NPOV Fred Bauder 19:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Relevance of references
2) 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Edit summaries
3) 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- A large number of books and external links are cited but not information sufficient to locate the actual source, if any, of the information. Citing the Epic of Gilgamish is not sufficient without detailed information from some edition of it with page and passage, but even that would not be sufficient, the Epic of Gilgamesh is not a reference work on ancient weights and measure, but a primary source. Fred Bauder 15:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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" [1]. These assertions seem related to the theories of Livio Catullo Stecchini.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Several notions in this passage have not been shown to have been within the intellectual repertoire of the Egyptians or Mesopotamians. See [2] Fred Bauder 18:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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 [3] and a user's comment [4].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- This shotgun approach is useless to both other editors and to the ultimate consumer Fred Bauder 19:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Disruptive edits by Rktect
4) Rktect ( talk · contribs) has reverted reversions of vandalism by editors he was in a dispute with [5], [6], and has admitted that this was in order to prove a point [7].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- These edits are simple vandalism. Even if the editors involved in the dispute with Rktect were actually vandalizing themselves, this would be an unacceptable method of dealing with the problem. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Putting vandalism back in just to prove a point is ridiculous Fred Bauder 00:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Rktect banned from Weights and measures
1) Rktect ( talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- I think for the present this is the appropriate remedy. If his habits extend to other areas they can be dealt with later. Obsession is not likely to resolve; that is the basis for indefinite duration. Fred Bauder 19:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- My concern with the 1) proposal is that the problem may easily spread to other areas. Various biographies, and articles like Damascus steel, Proto-Indo-Europeans have already been affected. -- Egil 14:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not to forget Squaring the circle. -- Egil 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Enforcement by banning
1) Should Rktect ( talk · contribs) edit any article which related to weights and measures (metrology) he may be briefly banned, up to one week in the case of repeat offenses.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed final decision Information
Template
1) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Obsessional point of view
1) 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 Neutral point of view. Efforts to establish a particular point of view sometimes results in violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability as efforts are made to support an eccentric POV.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Essentially this is a violation of NPOV Fred Bauder 19:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Relevance of references
2) 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Edit summaries
3) 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- A large number of books and external links are cited but not information sufficient to locate the actual source, if any, of the information. Citing the Epic of Gilgamish is not sufficient without detailed information from some edition of it with page and passage, but even that would not be sufficient, the Epic of Gilgamesh is not a reference work on ancient weights and measure, but a primary source. Fred Bauder 15:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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" [1]. These assertions seem related to the theories of Livio Catullo Stecchini.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Several notions in this passage have not been shown to have been within the intellectual repertoire of the Egyptians or Mesopotamians. See [2] Fred Bauder 18:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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 [3] and a user's comment [4].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- This shotgun approach is useless to both other editors and to the ultimate consumer Fred Bauder 19:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Disruptive edits by Rktect
4) Rktect ( talk · contribs) has reverted reversions of vandalism by editors he was in a dispute with [5], [6], and has admitted that this was in order to prove a point [7].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- These edits are simple vandalism. Even if the editors involved in the dispute with Rktect were actually vandalizing themselves, this would be an unacceptable method of dealing with the problem. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Putting vandalism back in just to prove a point is ridiculous Fred Bauder 00:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Rktect banned from Weights and measures
1) Rktect ( talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- I think for the present this is the appropriate remedy. If his habits extend to other areas they can be dealt with later. Obsession is not likely to resolve; that is the basis for indefinite duration. Fred Bauder 19:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- My concern with the 1) proposal is that the problem may easily spread to other areas. Various biographies, and articles like Damascus steel, Proto-Indo-Europeans have already been affected. -- Egil 14:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not to forget Squaring the circle. -- Egil 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Enforcement by banning
1) Should Rktect ( talk · contribs) edit any article which related to weights and measures (metrology) he may be briefly banned, up to one week in the case of repeat offenses.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: