Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Rktect

Complete request for arbitration in this matter for reference:

Involved parties
vz.

Other Wikipedians have also been involved in this conflict, and Egil is informing them on their respective talk pages.

Summary
Rktect has since July 23 2005 submitted content, esp. connected to historic metrology and related subjects (e.g. related biographies), that Egil finds wholly unacceptable and severly lacking in all aspects of quality required for an encyclopedia. Attempts at resolving this by conventional means has not been successful. Egil claims that the outcome of VfDs shows that consensus has been reached with respect to this lack of quality, and that Rktect has acted in bad faith.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User:Egil initiated the request, and has informed User:rktect 
 * I am aware of the request Rktect 12:45, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Discussing with R. (by many Wikipedians) have been fruitless, and only ended in edit wars and attacks. The VfDs on R.s articles has shown consensus aginst articles submitted by R., but the reaction has been to create more articles of essential the same. A mediation between E. and R., with as mediator, was initiated on August 11th, but was ended when the mediator informed E. that R. was not interested in continuing.
 * Mediation with Egil failed when while restrained by the terms of the mediation from acting himself he contacted others on their talk pages and suggested they act in his behalf which they subsequently did.
 * The use of the term "consensus" is misleading in that this is not a case of independant users acting in parallel but a coordianted attack by a faction whose comments on their talk pages give plenty of evidence of concerted action.
 * When things are connected in series that is a very different situation than when they are connected in parallel.
 * 457 separate attacks by Egil since August 5, contacting users Crissov,Jimp, Gene Nygaard ,Indefatigable, Kenwarren,Icairns,Allen3,Drini,KevinSaff,Nandesuka,PBurka,Paul August,Zoe,Fred Bauder asking for assistance in making personal attacks which has been provided Rktect 00:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User: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. Contrary to accepted knowledge, 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, 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 sources (sometimes to the extent of being copyright violations ). 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.

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

I am referring to rktects contribution as a whole, since the sheer amount of material produced by rktect over the last month makes a more detailed analysis a major task. If required, I can provide a list of affected articles, and I can of course also go through this on a detailed article-by-article basis, but will warn that this may take a long time and significant effort. I can also supply further evidence of my claims above, as requested. For your information I have collected some notes here.

I also believe bad faith can be established. Rktect has created new articles with essentially the same content that has been deleted by VfDs (see for a list of VfDs), and is adding similar content to new articles. He submitted this article to VfD (presumably as a revenge attack), he distorted my request for assistance (see, section "Pseudoscientific attack"), he has used vandalism as a form of revenge  , distorted discussions and used anon sockpuppets (see above for list), and removed VfD tags several times . Also, over a long period, rktect marked all his edits, however large, as minor.

Statement by User:rktect
Improperly positions response by rktect moved --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 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.

[Re: Zoe's comment]


 * The assertion that there is conspiricy is supported by communications between the group documented on their talk pages and elsewhere and subsequent concerted action.
 * Zoe's charge that I am convinced that the Indo European language is derived from Ancient Egyptian simply reveals a lack of knowledgebase. It isn't what was said but rather what was heard. The dispute arose over the claim that an article should be deleted because it had a non-English name. I pointed out that English is a language which has borrowed words from many languages and provided a list of twenty some odd words borrowed into English from Egyptian from the moderator of the EEF discussion list plus a few more that have been discussed on sci.lang in past years by various linguists. My premise is that like words, systems of mesurement can be borrowed and there is substantial classical support from authors like Herodotus who specifically refers to the Greeks having borrowed Egyptian measures like the schoenus and aroura. I subsequently provided some of the etymologucal discussion on my talk page. Zoe has acted with considerable personal animosity including blocking me under the 3RR rule for making an edit rather than a revert which action was discussed with drini. This after the group including Zoe and Drini had collectively made some 5 reverts of the page in question in a few hours removing references from an article up for vfd.Rktect 10:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Improperly placed response to Zoe by rktect moved -- Egil 10:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A conspiricy is proved when it is shown that there is a combination or confederacy among two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing by their joint efforts a damage or harm to another and a person is quilty of conspiricy if there is a solicitation or discussion of action and then agreement to act and subsequent action.Rktect 10:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Improperly placed response to Drini by rktect moved -- Egil 15:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Many people lack the vocabulary to discuss or even read with comprehension discussions of ancient measures. The English language has more than 500,000 words in it, many of which are borrowed from other languages. For people who are reading an article which contains many new words with which they may be unfamiliar, definition of terms pages are needed to make them encyclopedic.


 * It makes no sense to redirect definitions of terms being used in a discussion to disambiguation pages that have nothing to do with them.


 * Ideally each definitions page contains enough information that you fully understand the term.


 * To follow a discussion of different foot based units you need to know that they can be divided and nultiplied to arrive at other units in different ways.


 * You won't find any of that on the present page entitled foot.


 * On the other hand some users don't need or want to know the full history of a unit so using an archaic or special spelling can often help make that separation of discussion clearer.


 * By creating new links that give basic information about size and system each main page becomes more effective, Deleting content, links, Wikification and references is counterproductive.


 * On a page dealing with a "sos" or Mesopotamian field of 10 acres someone suggested redirecting it to "SOS" as a spelling error. On a page dealing with a "milion" which is the Latin word used in the Bible for a Greek Mylios or Mile, a user who was unfamiliar with the term suggested it was a flower and another user suggested it be redirected to "MIllion".


 * When drini deletes this sort of content he acts against the encyclopedias best interests. A better way to deal with this would be to comment on the discussion page and get a change or modificiation rather than delete or redirect the page. Rktect 15:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Additional improperly placed response to Drini by rktect moved -- Egil 20:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Those examples are taken from a table which defines the units several different ways. As a multiple of fingers, in mm and as a fraction of a foot of a given definition. Since the Greek pous or feet have different lengths an attempt is made to identify both which pous and which length. Rktect 15:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * Those kinds of misconceptions are why I'm adding the information. A measure of an ancient unit in modern units should not be carried out to several decimals of mm because that exceeds the accuracy or precision of the original standard. The unit fractions are given to clarify the relationship. Rktect 15:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Zoe
Rktect's assertion above that there is some kind of conspiracy against him is unprovable. He continues to assert that I am involved in some plot against him when, so far as I know, there has never been a single communication between me and Egil save for his notification on my Talk page that this RfAr had been filed.

Rktect continues to make original research edtis. He seems convinced, somehow, that the Indo-European language is derived from Ancient Egyptian. When asked to prove this assertion, he creates long, abstract edits which either fail to address the question, or present so-called arguments which require stretches of logic to accept. See / Zoe 05:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

When questioned on these subjects, he attacks the questioners and refuses to moderate his actions. Zoe 05:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Kenwarren
I have been involved in this dispute nearly since the beginning, as I'm the individual that initially requested the mediation between Egil and Rktect. I intend to present additional comments and evidence when and where I'm notified it's appropriate.
 * Regarding Rktect's contention that there is a conspiracy, I am not aware of one, and I don't think there is any evidence of one. Wikipedia editors communicate amongst each other regularly, in the course of their editorial involvement. Speaking for myself, I have voted my concience, in an attempt to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I have not received any direction from Egil at any time on any of this material.
 * Regarding the factual content of Rktect's edits, it's extremely variable, and sometimes does not agree with accepted information in the field. This is common enough in his edits that it's prudent to check all of his facts, an arduous task. Additionally, he appears to espouse as fact the theory (rejected by the field of classical studies) that Ancient Egypt was sufficiently versed in geodesy to know the dimensions of the Earth, and to have divided the circumference into specific units of measure. This theory colors all of Rktect's edits, which seem designed to support it.
 * Regarding his article style, even after repeated corrections he persists in using Wikimarkup in a way which makes his edits impossible to decipher (e.g. indenting every line in a long article, where each line contains only half a dozen words). (This problem may be self-correcting as he gains experience with wikimarkup and the Manual of Style, and as other editors continue to correct and mentor him.)
 * His editorial style is combative to the point that one typically does not work with him, one works against him. He seems to simply paste removed or edited material back into articles, rather than trying to achieve a consensus.
 * It is possible to get him to take a neutral viewpoint: which shows an excellent grasp of how to write an accurate bio of an individual whose conclusions are controversial. However, it is nearly impossible to engage him in this way; I had to resort to a form of argumentum ad misericordiam to achieve this result, and I've succeeded only the once.
 * I feel that he has made a small number of bad faith edits, mostly to prove a point or as revenge. I also question his involvement in mediation, as he repeatedly redefined a requested truce to allow him freedom to act, but to constrain Egil. This does not seem to be his normal mode of operation, however.
 * There has been significant incivility on both sides, which has not helped matters.

Ken talk 14:12, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Drini

 * The content that Rktect keeps pushing is POV and misleading, since he implies that in ancient times there was a standarized measurement system across civilizations. For instance, taken from the current (23:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)) version of Pous:
 * 1 šusi (little finger) 	1 	15 	1/20 pous of 300 mm
 * 1 Roman uncia (thumb or inch) 	1 	24.7 mm 	1/12 Iomic pous
 * for just two examples. Although it is possible for that some standars to exist on later periods of history, it's unlikely that they were accurate up to milimter percission as we have today, mainly because an international coordinate effort is needed for that. Just consider that current imperial units system was first formally defined in 1824 and redefined in 1959. (See Imperial unit)
 * More over, he claims that ancient measures are integer multiples of round numbers expressed in metric system (pous of 300mm, etc), which cannot be possible since metric system is a recent invention. (See Metric system). Therefore, an statement that the measurements were exactly equal up to milimeter precission standarized over large preriods of time (bronze age, preconquest americas, etc) is misleading as at most, those measurements would be approximated.


 * He keeps readding content that has already been deleted in dozens of VfDs, and his additions are just copy and paste of the deleted material. For instance, consider the diff that is clearly a duplication of content from Mile, as it even copied the interwiki links at the bottom from the Mile entry. So his contributiosn are done without regard of the actual relationship to the entry. (List of Vfd'ed content: ) -- (drini|&#x2615;) 19:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Rktect also claims of users acting in coordination as a conspiracy against him are unsubstantiated. He lightly accuses of vandalism and sockpuppetism users with contributions disagreeing with him. He disregards consensus in the form of many users removing his additions acting in an independent way. He has also acted in bad faith actually vandalizing entries to prove his point:
 * ,, and


 * He resorts to aggresive private emailing message. Some documentation of these statements can be found at.
 * Personal attacks name calling, as a sample, take his statement on this very page:
 * 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.
 * Furthermore, he tags personal images for deletion without reason and his votes are personal attacks: and disrupts other people's talk pages he doesn't like: . -- (&#x263A;drini&#x266B;|&#x260E;) 21:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * He modifies already closed VFDs: -- (&#x263A;drini&#x266B;|&#x260E;) 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Outright lying in order to get sanctions against me. From Talk:Squaring the circle (diff ) dated 21:53, 12 September 2005. where Rktect states:
 * This article has now been reverted 3 times in the last hour by user drini who seems not to read discussion pages. The Egyptian architect at Saqarra and the rhind papyrus are well known examples of Egyptian circle squaring Rktect 02:56, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * But, looking at page history, you can see that:
 * 1. First I did 3 consecutive edits (diff ) where I deleted some content and which were NO REVERT from the previous version. The reasons were explained later at the talk page.
 * 2. After Rktect undid my changes and reposted material, I reverted (yes, this was a revert) at . And those were all my changes (up to now) to the entry.
 * Rktect claim that I broke 3RR (which by the way would need me to revert 4 times the entry and I only did one) where I only did 4 EDITS, is one of the many examples of how rktect is acting in bad faith and throwing unsubstantiated accusations against other wikipedians. -- (&#x263A;drini&#x266B;|&#x260E;) 05:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jimp
The charge that Egil orchestrated a personal attack on Rktect is not fair. I'm not part of any group out to get Rktect. I disagree with his theory that all measurement systems used throughout history are one and the same. I have attacked this theory. I have at no time attacked Rktect. I have not acted at the request of Egil nor of anyone else. I have acted only in the interests of improving this encyclopædia. I find Rktect's theory to be implausible based on the known evidence.

I'm not convinced that there is any such organised group whose aim is to attack either Rktect or his theory. As far as I'm aware the individuals involved have acted, as I have, according to their own concious. It is true that I have been in contact with Egil on my talk page in regard to this issue however communication is not the same as conspiracy.

Many editors have become concerned about the contributions of Rktect. These editors are the ones that Egil has contacted. Were there no such concern, there'd have been no contact. This accusation of Rktect's that there is a co-ordinated attack is baffling.

Statement by User:Nandesuka
I first encountered Rktect's contributions on WP:AFD. My interaction with him has been mostly minimal, as his areas of interest and mine do not intersect. As an editor and reader, however, I will say that even a cursory reading of his work is simply devastating. Putting aside the formatting issues, which are simply irritating, his writing has a deeper problem. His prose is elliptical, obscure, and virtually incomprehensible. His reaction to criticism seems to be to immediately personalize the issue. Attempts at resolution become adversarial almost instantly. His response to the consensus process is to view it as hostile and catastrophic. He publically mischaracterizes the statements of other editors in a way that is shameful. To take one simple example, in his response, above, he states:

"457 separate attacks by Egil since August 5, contacting users Crissov,Jimp, Gene Nygaard ,Indefatigable, Kenwarren,Icairns,Allen3,Drini,KevinSaff,Nandesuka,PBurka,Paul August,Zoe,Fred Bauder asking for assistance in making personal attacks which has been provided"

The only communication that Egil has had with me is here (coupled with a followup question and response here,  ). In that communication, Egil informed me of the existence of this RfArb &mdash; nothing more. In other words, Rktect is willing to describe informing an editor that an RfA has been filed as "asking for assistance in making personal attacks." Whether or not Rktect is deliberately misrepresenting the words of other editors, or simply cannot tell the difference between discussion and vilification is not clear to me, but is not relevant. What is relevant is that this pattern of behavior is consistent, ongoing, and Rktect shows no signs of recognizing it as a problem or indicating any willingness to moderate his behavior.

Nandesuka 05:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by RHaworth
Rktect, you have a lot to say, why don't you start your own website? Why put up with rough treatment from Wikipedians when you can publish to your heart's content with no-one to stop you? Please answer - we are very interested to know.

I recommend that Rktect be invited to take a couple of weeks break from Wikipedia and asked, politely, to consider whether his edits are actually making a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Putting that another way - block for a couple of weeks to give Wikipedia time to tidy up.

Conspiracy? No - it is merely consensus.

One thing that annoys me about Rktect's contributions is that in every article about Egypt he uses some (usually most) of the following terms:
 * 3ht - 3kr - st3t - kht - mh t3 - etc.

They remind one of leet. They are worse than elitist, they are personal: RKtect claims that they follow an internet convention for citing hieroglphic Egyptian. In fact he and Steve Whittet are the only person on the web who follow this convention. Could we please use terms that other Egyptologists use, with links to their definitons on sources independant of Rktect? To be fair, he did try to define two of these terms but his definitions were quite properly deleted (Votes for deletion/3ht) because they were his usual rambling stuff.

(Note. Rktect has nominated the image on my user page for deletion. That childish act merely confirms my recommendation above, which can be seen here in draft from before he made the image nomination. Ie. this is not revenge.)

RHaworth 21:18:45, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

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

 * Accept, but you are both going to have to show better evidence. Fred Bauder 20:50, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. &rarr;Raul654 23:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept &#10149;the Epopt 03:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Accept. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for clarification (December 2013)
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=588093350#Clarification_request:_Rktect Original discussion]


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by  Nyttend (talk) at 23:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected:
 * Link to relevant decision
 * Link to relevant decision

This relates to the enforcement section

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * confirmation, although there's no real need for it
 * Am I really required to confirm this?

Statement by Nyttend
Just curious, do we ever impose short bans like this anymore? Should this be interpreted as "may be briefly blocked"? The guy's de-facto banned (indef-blocked in early 2009 after tons of WP:IDHT), but the socks keep appearing (see the block log for Khamis Mushat), so I figured it couldn't hurt to get a little clarification.
 * PS I've added Dougweller to this purely because he should be able to contribute if he wants to. He just now blocked the Khamis account due to clear WP:DUCK evidence (he emailed me the evidence; I'm sure he wouldn't mind sending it to you if you care to see it), and a comment from him is the only reason I'm aware of this situation.  I fully back his actions, and I can't imagine anyone other than Rktect objecting to what he's done.  Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dougweller

 * The wording is clearly wrong. It says " Rktect (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology)." and then under enforcement "

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.". Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This arbitration case long predates any current member of the Committee (I'm the second most senior member in point of seniority and I've never heard of it). The editor in question has been blocked indefinitely since 2009. I doubt very much that the arbitration decision from 2005 is of any current relevance. (In answer to the question about whether we do short bans like this any more, the answer is that enforcement provisions today sometimes provide for short blocks for breaches of remedies, but they also expressly authorize longer blocks for repeat violations.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion arises out of the "may be briefly banned" enforcement provision. It is clear to me that the enforcement provision meant he "may be briefly blocked" for up to a week. These days, we are much more diligent about making the contents of our decision clear, and in any case for us to authorise enforcement as lenient as a one-week block would be atypical. AGK  [•] 10:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems clear that it meant "may be briefly blocked" not "may be briefly banned", but given that he's indefinitely blocked since 2009 and indefinitely topic banned, I'm not sure it makes much difference. Worm TT( talk ) 11:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The differences between a ban and a block used to be a standard question for admin candidates. The essential differences are 1) a ban formally inhibits the person behind the account from editing Wikipedia through any account, while a block is a restriction on an individual account which in certain circumstances still allows the user to legitimately edit through another account; 2) a block can be undone by a single admin, while a ban can only be undone by consensus after a discussion.
 * While these days when ArbCom imposes a block it is treated effectively as a ban which can only be reversed by consensus - I'm not sure that was the case in 2008, which may explain the wording. As regards duration of blocks/bans - I think attitudes toward the purpose and effectiveness of blocks/bans are continually evolving. The community are reluctant to use short blocks as a punitive measure, though will do so for repeated minor infractions as an incentive to the user to remember what the boundaries are - rather like a low voltage electric fence.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with all the above, though this case is one it might be useful to include in a general review of past cases to see how effective they were. The reports of continued socking concern me. It is in some ways a failure if people resort to socking instead of feeling they can engage with other editors. Though some types of editors will always be so headstrong and determined to get their way that they will resort to socking, ultimately, the only people they are harming is themselves. They should recognise that the best way to advance their views is to set up their own website, not to latch on to and attempt to subvert Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.