This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Requested temporary injunction

SEW continues messing with the reference format, against the clearly expressed proposed decision of the arbcomm, at sea level rise.

I request a temporary injunction on SEW not to edit the reference format of any articles where his changes are disputed or likely to be (that includes all climate change articles).

William M. Connolley 09:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Motion for procedural fairness dismissal

1) This Request for arbitration should be dismissed due to the charges, or topic for arbitration, not being defined. I have been named a party to this case with only the descriptions "I'd like to see SEW's recent behaviour examined: he has been malicious." and "We should include SEWilco's actions". (original RFAr) The doctrine of Natural justice and procedural due process require adequate notice of any charges. (SEWilco 06:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. And yes, "the doctrine of natural justice and procedural due process" are not being followed here. Welcome to reality. Stop trying to wikilawyer your way out of the situation, and instead talk about what you did, why you did it, and how you feel justified in what you did. Or don't. Your choice. James F. (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. It is rather difficult to proceed or participate without knowing the topic, and starting a case with an undefined topic seems like at a minimum an awkward procedure. "Behavior" and "actions" seem overly vague, leaving a claim of "been malicious"; is that adequate notice? Omitted RFAr template info was inserted [1] but not filled in, and Arbitrators have not supplied answers to questions in the Talk page (Talk:#Problems with initial RFAr page) (SEWilco 06:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    1. Jdforrester: Without specific charges, do we just chat about Bermuda, or do I describe my edits on Canadian Shield or Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template? I think the topic is related to User:William M. Connolley but does this RFAr really meet the standards of the ArbComm? The ArbComm does recognize a need for specific requests, and does this request meet their standards? That further explanation has not been supplied suggests that others are also having trouble determining what the specific request is, and is this an example of the standards for acceptable RFAr requests? "The Arbitration Committee will tend to reject requests where: * there is no specific request, or the Arbitration Committee is unable to determine what the specific request is" [2]
    2. User:William M. Connolley refers to an RFA (probably RFAr based on context) in a citation discussion. (Global cooling diff) This RFAr includes citations topics also? (SEWilco 14:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Usability of evidence presented in arbitration cases requires that evidence be "focusing on the principle issues involved with adequate references to examples of the behavior complained of." How can any evidence be submitted which is focused on undefined principle issues? Or principal issues. (SEWilco 05:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  3. I suspect I started these proceedings by asking to reopen the case. As far as my original intend is concerned, this is not a new case, but rather a reconsideration of the old one. The old one was apparently specific enough, so this one should be, too. In particular, I presented the evidence about SEWilco's behavior not primarily to implicate him, but rather to point out how William M. Connolley's parole is not useful, but rather being misused. On the other hand, by now I do think that SEWilco deserves censure, for violation of WP:Point, for intentional obtuseness during the discussion, and for being, in general, as unhelpful as possible. The evidence I presented also illustrates these points (although it would be easy to find more - as mentioned above, my primary goal is to make it possible to work constructively again, and to stop the useless distraction of SEWilco's campaign).--Stephan Schulz 13:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are already well acquainted with the old case. Moreover, it's not that long a read.--Stephan Schulz 17:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. James F. : And yes, "the doctrine of natural justice and procedural due process" are not being followed here. Welcome to reality. According wikipedia natural justice means; The doctrine of natural justice is founded in the notion that logical reasoning may allow the determination of just, or fair, processes in legal proceedings. So although he hasn't broken any rule and has tried to uphold the rulings of the Arbcom he can be punished just the same. This one line to remember. --MichaelSirks 12:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion for speedy partial resolution

This case now seems to involve two different and quite independent topics. One is William's revert parole (which I suggest should be lifted) and SEWilco's harrasment/enforcement/holy war, the other the revert war over the footnote format (a topic which, honestly, leaves me rather cool). While SEWilco keeps heaping more and more stuff into this case, I think much of it is irrelevant. In fact, despite trying to assume good faith, this very much looks like an attempt to uselessly complicate and delay matters. The success of Wikis is due to their informality, speedy information exchange, and low entry barriers. I think we should honour these strengths here as well. Since the parole will end in less than 3 weeks anyways, further delay would make this point moot. So I move to decide at least this point as soon as possible. I would be happiest if the parole is lifted now. Alternatively, it would be acceptable if it is clarified that it is to be interpreted with reasonable discretion and that "violation spamming" of ancient, irrelevant and uncontroversial edits will not be tolerated. --Stephan Schulz 21:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. SEWilco's error is a newbie mistake, thinking that we would strictly enforce the parole in circumstances different from those on which it was based. My thought is to forgive and forget. He quits making a big fuss and so do we. Fred Bauder 18:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Newbie? Agreed otherwise, but not really my point. --Stephan Schulz 19:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. The motion says "This case now seems to involve": Part of the problem here is that the topics were not defined. What evidence to present is not apparent, so many topics have to be covered, particularly by a defendant who doesn't know what to defend. But the Arbitration Committee chose to reopen this can of worms, after they had already fed the worms by refusing to simply follow their own rules. (SEWilco 20:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder: I can't quit making a fuss. You dragged me in here and I am required to respond. You've already made it apparent that some Arbitration Committee members don't take arbitration results seriously. Perhaps you should step aside and let someone participate who will pay attention. (SEWilco 21:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:

Reminder of request for acceptance rationale

1) Arbitrators have been requested to provide a rationale for their votes for acceptance of arbitrations, following the requirement in Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Requests. You opened this can of worms and I want to know which worms you were aware of. (SEWilco 16:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I have answered this, but as I am getting into the case I can see that the actual issues are quite different. This is not unusual. That is why we can't decide cases in the 15 minutes that may be necessary to decide to accept a case. Fred Bauder 17:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. This is only a request for the rationale behind the acceptance votes. (SEWilco 18:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:

Motion for temporary order to SlimVirgin

1) I request that User:SlimVirgin be told to stop interfering with me while this case is open. (SEWilco 05:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Examples
  1. Blocking citation bot: [3]
  2. Removal of citation information (against WP:V and ArbComm precedent #Source citations): [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [
  3. Undescribed movement of active poll to subpage, with original section title missing so the poll can not be found (diff)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed Principles and Facts by SEWilco

Arbitrary and poorly defined cases are acceptable

This principle is in opposition to previously existing policy and precedent. ("Decisions on case acceptance", "Usability of evidence presented in arbitration cases")

The Arbitration Committee may accept requests where:

Supported by
  1. #Fact: Arbitration Policy not followed in this case
  2. #Fact: This is a poorly defined case
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Fact: Arbitration Policy not followed in this case

  1. Arbitrators voting to accept this case have not been able to provide a rationale for their acceptance votes, as required by the Arbitration Policy.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Fact: This is a poorly defined case

Evidence
  1. Discussion and a poll was still under way at Talk:Global_cooling#SEWilco.2C_disruptive_reverts.2C_and_citations when this case was re-opened.
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco created 22:48, 24 November 2005 by William M. Connolley (diff) while this case was re-opened 27 November 2005, only 3 days later.
  3. Arbitrators have been unable to define the specific request and topics for arbitration. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop#Motion for procedural fairness dismissal
  4. This case is a re-opening of a previous case but two parties have not yet participated in this case, and they have not yet presented evidence in this case.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Fact: Arbitration Committee has not clarified parole enforcement

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Arbitration rulings and policies are applied equally

This is a new principle.

Wikipedia participants will apply and enforce rulings and policies equally to all users.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. It is not fair to force two participants off Wikipedia while not enforcing the ruling upon another participant. (SEWilco 16:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Guettarda: So what is the level of severity at which parole can be ignored within days? To be fair to the others on parole, they should know this. (SEWilco 05:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. The findings against the other two were more severe, and thus, their penalties were more severe. The ruling against WMC was not based on specific findings of fact, and appear to have been based on broader ideas of revert warring. Penalties are meant to modify behaviour or prevent behaviour, not to punish. Guettarda 20:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration rulings

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Fact: SEWilco and other users supported arbitration rulings

Evidence
  1. SEWilco attempted to report violations to the Arbitration Committee. As violations are to be treated as 3RR violations, they were reported to WP:AN/3RR. Upon request, also reported to WP:AN/I.
  2. SEWilco reported violations 12 times to WP:AN/3RR, based on ruling stating that violations were to be treated as 3RR violations. (AN/3RR with reports) 12 reports from 20:31, 15 November 2005 to 16:04, 25 November 2005, a very slow pace compared to most Wikipedia discussion/voting forums.
  3. Although WP:AN/3RR seemed like the proper place for violation reports, at SlimVirgin's suggestion [30][ one report was posted to WP:AN/I. [31] SlimVirgin then blocked SEWilco based on report timing assumptions from WP:AN/3RR.[32]
  4. SEWilco then asked for clarification on behalf of Administrators. RFAR#Are arbitration decisions to be taken seriously in climate change dispute? (SEWilco had not used that page earlier due to instructions that it is not for discussion, and the parole rules are clear.)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Fact: William M. Connolley did not abide by arbitration rulings

Evidence
  1. Ignores parole requirements: "… I discuss on the talk pages where this is useful, and use edit summaries where that suffices. Anything more would be unreasonably burdensome.… William M. Connolley 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)." [33][reply]
  2. List of some obvious violations: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2/Evidence#Table_of_reversions
  3. The first violation which has been noticed took place just days after his parole started. [34]
  4. Continues to ignore parole requirements after recent block [35]:
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Guettarda: I can't seem to find the word "burdensome" at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute#William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles. (SEWilco 05:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    It's somewhere in the talk pages, in reply to questions. Guettarda 05:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find in the talk pages, can you be more specific?--MichaelSirks 12:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. The original case said that WMC should use edit summaries talk page comments unless it was "unreasonably burdensome". William appears to be justifying his actions within the parameters of the ruling. Guettarda 21:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: William M. Connolley did enforce arbitration rulings

Evidence
  1. Rv and reporting of suspected JonGwynne edit: [38] [39] [40] [41]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Administrators

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Bans and blocks

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Fact: Administrators did not take violations seriously

Evidence
  1. There has been a lack of enforcement of reported violations by administrators. [42]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Fact: Arbitration Committee did not support arbitration rulings

Evidence
  1. Remedies were defined in previous case.
  2. Details of the remedies were not placed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested.
    • Details of a previous case against a participant, JonGwynne, had been placed there. [43]
  3. A summary of the case was not added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests (history)
  4. Wikipedia:Parole is poorly supported.
  5. There is no method defined for reporting violations. (there are no links to support or deny this although such have been requested)
  6. Those involved in the above were called to the case to explain the above. This was removed by Fred Bauder (diff).
  7. SEWilco and others attempted to report violations to the Arbitration Committee.
  8. SEWilco asked for clarification on behalf of Administrators. RFAR#Are arbitration decisions to be taken seriously in climate change dispute? (SEWilco had not used that page earlier due to instructions that it is not for discussion, and the parole rules are clear.)
  9. Clarification has not been provided. There continues to be no defined means for reporting and enforcing Wikipedia:Parole violations.
Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the obvious place to report parole violations. We appreciate it if administrators enforce our decision, but sometimes we make decisions which for one reason or another are not enforced and we then need reconsider our decision or enforcement technique. We can easily run ahead, behind or alongside community consensus. Our decisions should reflect community consensus as much as explicitly express policies. This sort of feedback from administrators is useful both to all concerned. Fred Bauder 17:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. Fred Bauder: There is no obvious place to report Wikipedia:Parole violations. As the Arbitration Committee defined the parole, attempts were made to report to the Arbitration Committee. A location being read by the Arbitration Committee was not found. As stated above, as violations are to be reported as 3RR then WP:AN/3RR was the obvious place. It seemed to be the intended place because Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is covered with restrictions on posting there. (SEWilco 05:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:

Source citations

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Fact: SEWilco did insert additional citation content

Evidence
  1. SEWilco provided titles for source material and problems were fixed with existing sourcing (such as links to pages which produce a 404 error). (Kyoto Protocol diff) (Global cooling diff) — particularly see the Notes section. Kyoto Protocol talk: [46] Global cooling talk: [47] [48]
  2. The existing appearance of source notations was followed, such as by replacing numbered links with numbered links. Kyoto Protocol talk: [49] [50] [51] Global cooling talk: [52]
  3. WP:CITET templates were used in various ways to provide citation details. (Kyoto Protocol diff) (Global cooling diff)
  4. The Wikipedia best practices in Wikipedia:Footnotes were used. Kyoto Protocol talk: [53] [54] [55] [56] Global cooling talk: [57] [58] [59]
  5. Wikipedia:Verifiability prefers more detail about source material over less material. Kyoto Protocol talk: [60] [61] Global cooling talk: [62] [63]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Vsmith: The debate was not over the style of referencing. I said that More detail is preferred over less detail because the original problem was citation content and not style. I added a couple of references to the Kyoto Protocol article, then created citations for all the references (diff: edit is on left, start of citations on right). [64] [65] [66] WMC and Vsmith deleted the citation information (#Fact: Connolley and others did delete reference information), while giving poor descriptions of WP:FN [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]. Vsmith then changed from the consensus numbered styles to a Harvard style with a number of errors which are hard or impossible with WP:FN, which I pointed out [72] [73] [74] and tried to fix. [75] [76] (SEWilco 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Vsmith provided a link to the History of Solar variation, which I have been a significant contributor to. He neglected to point out Talk:Solar variation#Referencing, which contains a similar discussion about citations from a month earlier. There was no need to seek consensus to fix bad links and add WP:Verifiability content. Consensus for a bad article does not block improvements. I acted as an editor and contributor, and how you interpret it is up to you. (SEWilco 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. SEWilco did provide more detailed source information and correct some errors. The debate in the articles was not over that, but about the use of direct inline links versus his favorite footnote system. SEWilco has never recognized that simple fact. The greater detail he provided has been included in a reference section, which was indeed needed. The ref sections still need fine-tuning. The existing appearance of source notations is of only minor concern - the debate was over the method of referencing. Vsmith 21:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SEWilco was well aware of opposition to his footnotes approach in climate related articles prior to the current episode. See [77] for the interval 10-1 through 10-16. In spite of that debate (or perhaps because he considered himself the winner) SEWilco introduced his footnote system on the currently disputed articles without seeking prior consensus or comment. Considering his long history of dispute with WMC, it has the appearance of being done to irritate or provoke another edit war - which it did. Vsmith 21:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Vsmith: I'm just quoting the AC's precedent on not having to compromise in all circumstances. (SEWilco 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. The implication here is that all those who disagree with SEWilco are either cranks or POV pushers. I consider that an insult. Vsmith 20:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: Policy overrides any consensus for a bad article

Evidence
  1. Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. AC Principle #Source citations.
  3. AC Principle #Consensus
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Vsmith: My additional citation information is preferred by WP:Verifiability over URLs alone. And undoubtedly even more preferred over URLs to nonexistent locations. There was not a Reference section until I created one. (SEWilco 04:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Bad article? Pardon me but, I don't see any. Direct inline links have been an accepted part of verifiability. Reference sections of the articles under discussion now exist. The consensus deals with the reference style. Vsmith 20:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a link repository

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Fact: Global cooling article is now a collection of links

Evidence
  1. Global cooling article as of December 3 (still current as of Dec 3)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Not applicable. Thi is absurd, global cooling is not just a collection of links. It is a well documented article with numerous inline reference links and a reference section to give further information. The article does need further work to better correlate the links and reference section via modified Harvard style links. I have put this on hold pending talk page discussion. Vsmith 20:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: Connolley and others did delete reference information

Evidence
  1. SEWilco had to repeatedly restore source citation information. (see edits below)
  2. William M. Connolley removed reference information from articles, generally replacing them only with links. Kyoto Protocol: [78] [79] [80] [81]
  3. William M. Connolley removed reference information from Kyoto Protocol citations: [82] [83]
  4. Vsmith removed reference information from articles. Kyoto Protocol: [84] Global cooling: [85]
  5. Vsmith replaced Wikipedia best practice Wikipedia:Footnotes references with a fragile tangle containing errors which are not possible with WP:FN references. After being informed there were two erroneous links [86] it took 8 days for him to find those two, and another similar error. [87]
  6. Nandesuka removed reference information from Global cooling: [88] [89] [90]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Vsmith: I was creating citation content. You were deleting content while claiming it was style, and eventually created erroneous reference information. (SEWilco 05:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Again, SEWilco refuses to recognize that the debate in the talk pages was not over references, but against his stubborn insistence on using his favorite toy: footnotes. He ignored any attempts at consensus. Direct inline links are a valid and long recognized reference technique, his footnotes tool destroyed those direct links, forcing the user to jump to a Notes section to find the external source. With the Wiki slowdown that was ongoing at the time, this was most cumbersome and annoying and several editors resisted his unilateral change. His notes section, de-linked from the body, was converted to a more reasonable Reference section. SEWilco reverted first attempts at such a compromise and would probably still be reverting had the openning of the Rfc and this case not intervened. See comments of next Fact section for further discussion of his point number 5. Vsmith 05:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: Kyoto Protocol article is now difficult to maintain

Evidence
  1. Vsmith replaced Wikipedia best practice Wikipedia:Footnotes references with a fragile tangle containing errors which are not possible with WP:FN references. After being informed there were two erroneous links [91] it took 8 days for him to find those two, and another similar error. [92]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Vsmith:
1. The editor who did not fix them was you. I had already fixed the problem. As was already mentioned in the next section (#Fact: SEWilco matched the consensus style of references), I did follow your style change from numbered links to Harvard-style links with this version using WP:FN Harvard style links. You deleted the version with the corrections (diff).
2. An added inline external link does not bust WP:FN links nor the citations. Read WP:FN and its Talk page, or try it in a sandbos. The numbering does no longer match (in the present version which new code is rendering obsolete), but the links still work and repairs are easily made. Assuming, of course, that you're using ((ref)) rather than ((ref_harvard)), and as shown in "this version" above the latter does support an alphabetical listing.
3. It wasn't a quote, it was a sentence. (SEWilco 04:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Since SEWilco is misrepresenting my edits:
1. And until I got around to searching for those errors, what editor knew about them and did nothing to correct them?
2. fragile tangle? It seems an alphabetical Harvard style reference section is far more robust than an easily broken footnote system (and I am aware that my work is not perfect nor complete). One innocently added inline external link and footnotes are busted. An alphabetical listing is far easier to maintain and more user(editor) friendly than the current status of footnotes.
3. Note the Wikipedia best practice Footnotes references above is misleading. The quote should be wikipedia's current best practice regarding linked footnotes - a distinct difference. Vsmith 20:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: SEWilco matched the consensus style of references

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Vsmith: The style was numbered links. The content was URLs. I added more content while retaining the style. (SEWilco 04:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. The consensus style was for direct inline links, numbered or otherwise, as opposed to the cumbersome footnote style. SEWilko still insists on misrepresenting the debate. Vsmith 20:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

INCOMPLETE

Remainder of SEWilco evidence
I am not going to supply any more evidence. I have better things to do than play in Fred's kangaroo court. My partial evidence so far has been ignored, and a "/Proposed decision" has already begun which is essentially the same as what appeared in /Workshop before I had even this evidence ready. The "/Proposed decision" also includes at least one item, WMC parole reversion, which was not discussed here. (SEWilco 03
41, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed final decision

Proposed principles[edit]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Interpretation of policies and guidelines

1) Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines provides "While our policies continue to evolve, many Wikipedians feel that written rules are inherently inadequate to cover every possible variation of disruptive or malevolent behavior. For example, a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies might be reprimanded even if the letter of the rules has not been violated. Those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating an impartial encyclopedia, should find a welcoming environment."

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Seek consensus is most relevant here Fred Bauder 16:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Choosing citation format

2) Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_cite_sources, a style guide, provides:

The most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease.

There are different ways of accomplishing this. At one extreme, one may place the complete citation in the main text of the article; this makes the specific reference for a specific point immediately available to the reader, but disrupts the text and makes it difficult to read. At the other extreme, one may place all citations at the end of the document, in a bibliography; this leaves the text uninterrupted and easy to read, but makes it harder to find the correct references for specific points. Different professions and academic disciplines have developed different means for finding a balance between these two extremes.

If you are unclear as to which system or style to use, remember: the most important thing is to provide all the information one would need to identify and find the source. If necessary, put this information in the talk page, or in a comment on the main page, and ask others how to format it correctly for that article

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. I'll check into that, appreciate some diffs if you have them. Fred Bauder 19:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The language has changed but the language requiring discussion and respect for consensus was in earlier versions, see [95]
Comment by parties:
  1. The original articles had URL-only links. As many were to nonexistent pages (including nonexistent pages by WMC), they can hardly be called citations. I matched the appearance of the existing references while I added descriptive citations of sources. [96] (SEWilco 05:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. Cite sources has been deliberately changed during this dispute; in part to deliberately contradict the things that SEW has done. Further those changes were done with little consensus and in apparent contradiction of other attempts at consensus building. If it is to be used, versions before the dispute should be considered with equal, or in fact greater weight than current versions. Mozzerati 18:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    manual of style before recent changes "URLs as numbered links [...] should be converted to have a link text". Attempt at consensus building by SEW; later deleted from the talk page archive. Or a specific example SEWilco is in a slow edit war trying to add citations to Global cooling. The citations are being deleted by others. At this point, the "first major contributor" rule is added in an apparent contradiction of previous consensus which was that direct links should be replaced with citations. Mozzerati 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW. I should point out that it's quite likely that the "deliberate contradiction" is done in good faith. It may be more a matter of others trying to clarify their own understanding of the policies for SEW to see. I personally view it as an unsupported policy change. Mozzerati 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom rulings exist to resolve disputes

3) Arbitration committee rulings are made to resolve disputes. They are not made to punish users.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Sets up a needed FoF that I'm adding below. Phil Sandifer 19:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Prior case

1) As they relate to William M. Connolley some of the matters considered here were considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Results of prior case

2) The decision in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute#William_M._Connolley:_Six-month_revert_parole_on_certain_articles provided that William M. Connolley could only revert an article once in 24 hours and must provide an explanation of his revert. This restriction is due to expire on December 26, 2005.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. The key quote from that page is Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate. This phrase obviously is ambiguous and has been interpreted differently by those involved in the current dispute. Vsmith 21:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Footnotes

3) Wikipedia:Footnotes, a guideline, explains "wikipedia's current best practice regarding linked footnotes, implemented with a set of wikipedia templates"

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. A nightmare, but that is just my personal opinion. Fred Bauder 15:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

SEWilco's use of Wikipedia:Footnotes

4) SEWilco has converted articles in the area of climate change to the Wikipedia:Footnotes format [97].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Conflict over footnote format

5) William M. Connolley and others disagreed with this change to the formatting of footnotes and have reverted, see [98] where WMC reverts with the comment, "rv to consensus version". An RfC was filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco which addresses this conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
    • There are various edit wars involved here. In some cases, such as this WMC edit reverts actually removed citation information from articles. In this case SEWilco directly reverts In other cases like this Vsmith edit the citations have not been removed. SEWilco's edits in the latter case have not yet involved reverting, but rather improving the citations in the other format.
    • There are many other citation formats (such as inote) which do different visual things. This means that even if you don't like the look of citations, there is no need to remove the information. If it helps I can make a template which allows a full reference in edit mode, but only shows a direct URL in normal viewing mode. This would help most difficulties with recovering from broken links and changed content.
    • discussion on the RFC had barely started when this RFA began. In particular, I was planning to put an "other party" comment based on what I was learning from the talk, but since the RFA started I decided not to. Mozzerati 21:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment/SEWilco

6) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco show substantial opinion, mostly from regular editors of the articles affected, rejecting use of the footnote format favored by SEWilco and condemning SEWilco's complaints about reverts which trade on the revert parole imposed William M. Connolley.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Am I a party? If not, please move it mentally down one item. There are actually two different topics covered at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco. On the topic of the footnote format, the above comment is correct. On the topic of parole harrasment, many of the people commenting are not regular editors of the climate change pages, but came in after observing the events on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. --Stephan Schulz 20:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

SEWilco reminded of policy

7) The administrator SlimVirgin contacted SEWilco on 24 November and requested compliance with Wikipedia policy [99], see [[100]].

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. The question now is whether this was ignored or responded to Fred Bauder 19:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. SlimVirgin being an administrator is irrelevant when no Administrator role identification was made; indeed it was a conversation with a fellow editor, as emphasized by phrasing "Another editor". The second link above shows the messages were responded to. [101] (SEWilco 21:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. SlimVirgin did not remind SEWilco of policy. Wikipedia:Cite sources is not policy. Adding citation information is covered by policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. (SEWilco 05:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  3. The above mention of [102] has a link [103] is not relevant as that edit was not done by SEWilcoBot. (SEWilco 05:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  4. SlimVirgin blocked SEWilcoBot today without warning in the mentioned discussion. The block violated Wikipedia guidelines and policy WP:V which encourages more detail about citations. (SEWilco 05:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  5. SlimVirgin on 12 December directed us to Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_cite_sources which says The most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease. (emphasis is in original). I was doing the most important thing, adding more reference information. More source information is preferred over less. (SEWilco 05:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  6. SlimVirgin at around 14:11, 12 December 2005 deleted reference information from a number of articles. "Removal of references from articles is generally considered inappropriate." (#Source citations above) (SEWilco 05:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    1. Two of SlimVirgin's reverts have already been reverted to SEWilcoBot's version. [104] [105]. (SEWilco 05:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  7. The article George Galloway is not included in the preceding deletions because SlimVirgin and Nandesuka added citation details, not delete them. Unfortunately they made a mess and told me to not fix it a second time. (SEWilco 05:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  8. As SlimVirgin was informed, WP:FN was requested or recommended for a number of the articles citations had been added. George Galloway was undergoing a requested update which was interrupted by the block. Parts of that discussion are visible in my Talk page both before and after SlimVirgin's messages. And I am quite qualified to edit railway articles without having to check the meanings of a reefer or knuckle. (SEWilco 05:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. It was ignored. The bot continues as of December 12 to make changes that go against the advice in WP:CITE, which is a guideline, and in WP:V, which is policy. Both say that embedded links are acceptable. Here is what WP:CITE says about changing from one to the other: Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_cite_sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco's bot

8) SEWilco has been using a bot which automatically converts external links to the footnote format in Wikipedia:Footnotes, see for an example of it in use, see User talk:70.94.229.160 which redirects to SEWilcoBot (talk · contribs). The bot continued to be in use on 5 December [106].

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I frankly do not understand Fred's response. Wikipedia:Cite sources is a guideline, not a policy. We have no policy on the prefered form of citation. I have two, strenuous, objections to the bot. First, the guideline privileges the style originally used, and then leaves it to contributors to a page to decide whether to change the style. SEWilco's bot is in violation of the guideline and is taking the decision out of the hands of the contributors. Second, and more importantly, the effect of SEWilco's bot is to unilaterally turn one part of a guideline into a policy. This is flat out wrong. If SEWilco wants to propose a policy concerning inline citations, he has very right to do so. But we members of the community have a right to discuss and vote on the proposal. For all I know, every editor except me and SlimVirgin will support his proposal. Fine! But we should go through the same due process that is required of any policy proposal. Since for some reason this discussion has been parsed into several sections, I will repost this comment below.Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Operation of SEWilco's bot

9) SEWilcoBot (talk · contribs) marks its edits as minor. There is no discussion on the talk page of an article prior to its operation. Generally its work is not reverted. In its current configuration, "Robot: converting/fixing footnotes", it began operating on November 15, the first edit being to Kyoto Protocol [107].

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Generally despite lack of discussion the change is accepted. Fred Bauder 20:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd question if "accepted" is the word to use - it's a bot. Getting into an edit war with a bot is like a drinking game where you're drinking neat absinthe and your opponent is drinking dihydrogen monoxide - SoM 23:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to imply that the bot edit wars. Have you ever had to edit war with the bot? I just looked through it's edits and I can't see any point where it edited the same article twice. Have I missed something? Apologies if this is in the wrong section (I guess Fred will refactor?). Mozzerati 22:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't mean to imply the bot has edit warred, but was merely referring to the obvious potential for it to do so given SEWilco's strong feelings on these matters (and, given one of the "proposed decisions" specifically prohibits SEWilco or his bot reverting a revert of the bot's edit, that's hardly a thought exclusive to me).
        • Something which I glanced over before as I type though - if the bot edits with a summary of "Robot: converting/fixing footnotes", the use of the word "fixing" discourages reverts in and of itself. If the bot's to be allowed to continue running without restriction or a need to show a prior conscensus, it should be with an edit summary along the lines of "Robot: converting references to footnotes" and with a specific note in the summary that footnotes are not the only permitted form of referencing and that if someone disagrees, they may revert. - SoM 22:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. Actually the citation bot was first used 7 July 2005. The account SEWilcoBot is used for various automated tasks, generally using pywikipedia tools. (SEWilco 05:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Many arguments in this poorly-defined case are about my editing two articles which WMC owns. SlimVirgin below states SEWilcoBot is part of a "campaign". So is this a case about two specific articles, or many articles? (SEWilco 06:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. The bot continues to be used as of December 12, changing embedded links to footnotes as part of SEWilco's campaign to get rid of embedded links as sources. This violates WP:CITE and WP:V, which say that embedded links and footnotes are both acceptable as citation styles. WP:CITE also says that editors shouldn't change from one style to the other without gaining consensus on the article talk page. Where there is a dispute, the style preferred by the first contributor who supplied references should be respected. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is the same comment as above, but it applies to this discussion as well. I frankly do not understand Fred's response. Wikipedia:Cite sources is a guideline, not a policy. We have no policy on the prefered form of citation. I have two, strenuous, objections to the bot. First, the guideline privileges the style originally used, and then leaves it to contributors to a page to decide whether to change the style. SEWilco's bot is in violation of the guideline and is taking the decision out of the hands of the contributors. Second, and more importantly, the effect of SEWilco's bot is to unilaterally turn one part of a guideline into a policy. This is flat out wrong. If SEWilco wants to propose a policy concerning inline citations, he has very right to do so. But we members of the community have a right to discuss and vote on the proposal. For all I know, every editor except me and SlimVirgin will support his proposal. Fine! But we should go through the same due process that is required of any policy proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to SWEilco's bot

10) Despite occasional difficulties, SEWilcoBot (talk · contribs) is generally accepted and even praised User_talk:SEWilco#Bot:_thank_you.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Even praised Fred Bauder 22:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. I do not understand why there are three sections on SEWilco's bot. This is the same comment as above, but it applies to this discussion as well. I frankly do not understand Fred's response. Wikipedia:Cite sources is a guideline, not a policy. We have no policy on the prefered form of citation. I have two, strenuous, objections to the bot. First, the guideline privileges the style originally used, and then leaves it to contributors to a page to decide whether to change the style. SEWilco's bot is in violation of the guideline and is taking the decision out of the hands of the contributors. Second, and more importantly, the effect of SEWilco's bot is to unilaterally turn one part of a guideline into a policy. This is flat out wrong. If SEWilco wants to propose a policy concerning inline citations, he has very right to do so. But we members of the community have a right to discuss and vote on the proposal. For all I know, every editor except me and SlimVirgin will support his proposal. Fine! But we should go through the same due process that is required of any policy proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by others:

William M. Connolley's violations of revert parole

11) William M. Connolley has violated his revert parole first example

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. In first example removed [108] well referenced [109]negative information with the comment "Rv POV gossip."
  2. However most of the examples provided Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2/Evidence#Table_of_reversions while some are rather aggressive show only normal editing. Fred Bauder 20:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. If "normal editing" is an exception to parole, please define it for the benefit of everyone on parole. Is "normal editing" also an exception for banned users? (SEWilco 05:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:

SEWilco;s complaints about violation of WMC's revert parole

12) SEWilco has made a number of complaints regarding WMC's violations of his revert parole, but they were often ignored.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Please clarify which complaints were ignored and which were not seen. I requested related information but parties have not replied. (SEWilco 05:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:

SEWilco fanned flames

13) SEWilco has reported a number of revert violations on the part of WMC a long time after they ocurred, when there was no longer any dispute to put an end to. In doing so, he demonstrated a tendency to use WMC's parole to punish him rather than to aid in resolving disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I reported the violations when they were noticed. I can't find how the ArbComm stated they were supposed to be noticed and reported, and the Request for Clarification was not answered. (SEWilco 05:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Where in the parole does it mention anything about resolving disputes? It states what WMC shall do. WMC violated parole and violations are to be taken seriously. (SEWilco 05:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. This is, I think, an important facet of the case. Phil Sandifer 19:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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:

Clarification of the revert parole imposed on William M. Connolley

1) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute#William_M._Connolley:_Six-month_revert_parole_on_certain_articles, the 1RR revert parole was intended to apply to disputes over content of the articles, not to questions of formating.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. Hindsight suggests a Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_Clarification would have solved this problem, but whether we could have caught on to the significant of the matter is problematical. Fred Bauder 15:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Given the history of WMC I assumed the dispute was over content. I never imagined a bot which was changing the footnote format was involved. Fred Bauder 20:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. A Request for Clarification was filed but has been hidden on this RFAr's Talk page. This will be pointed out in my Evidence when it is ready. (SEWilco 16:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    1. The Request for Clarification is mentioned in #Fact: Arbitration Committee has not clarified parole enforcement. (SEWilco 05:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. The citation dispute is over the content of citations; details will be in my Evidence when that is ready. The bot is just a manually-run helper. (SEWilco 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    1. See #Fact: SEWilco did insert additional citation content and #Fact: SEWilco matched the consensus style of references. (SEWilco 05:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  3. Which of the dozens of violations are being referred to? (SEWilco 06:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. In the case where WMC reverted the Lomborg article it was about content. And it was without comment or a entry in the talkpage. I suspect almost al the reverts of WMC are about content. --MichaelSirks 21:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco's use of bot

2) SEWilco may continue to use his bot without first consulting with the editors of an article on its talk page, but may not restore any revert of its edits unless after discussion on the talk page of the article a consensus is reached that the Wikipedia:Footnotes format is preferred.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Object. Allowing a bot to change things in this way provided no-one actively reverts will have the effect of making the Wikipedia:Footnotes format a de facto policy since the vast majority of articles would be using it and the others will eventually thus be forced to fall into line.
    For the same reason, I think he should be forced to revert all the changes his bot has already made unless he can demonstrate a pre-existing consensus for each and every individual case. - SoM 21:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The bot has only modified perhaps 5% of the articles which use WP:FN. People have used the new template ((ref)) in over 6,000 articles. (SEWilco 16:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • At the same time, users can't stop bots by the very nature of bots (And the day we have bot-edit wars is the day WP comes crashing down). Bots should only be used for uncontroversial, repetitive edits (e.g., AFD closing etc) or simple but labour-intensive tasks (e.g., ((categoryredirect))). Your bot performs controversial and complex edits. - SoM 21:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is this "nature of bots"? As the previously provided (Kyoto Protocol diff) shows, I first edited Kyoto Protocol and then used the bot to improve the article. The bot also follows the existing style in the article while it adds citation content. (SEWilco 05:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
          • I also disagree with this proposed decision. WP:V and WP:CITE say that embedded links and footnotes are both acceptable and WP:CITE says that editors shouldn't change from one style to the other without discussion; and further, that in the case of dispute, the style preferred by the first contributor to supply references should be retained. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A bot is just as easy to revert as a normal editor. This bot makes six edits a day (averaged over last 10 days), compare with my own rate at about ten edits a day, it's hardly devastating the Wiki. In fact, at that rate, it should manage to achieve a de-facto standard within 421 years (assuming 900k articles). Demanding "pre-existing consensus for each and every individual case" is so strongly against the spirit of Wikipedia that even for a suggestion in an arbitration case it is going far to far. Further: according to reasonably clear consensus on the village pump, direct links are not acceptable for citations. As long as SEWilco sticks to converting only articles with direct links (so articles with citations in Harvard format, for example, should not be converted to use numbered footnotes) into articles with citations, there can be no reasonable objection. Mozzerati 22:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mozzerati, can you provide a link to the clear consensus on the Village Pump? WP:CITE is the relevant guideline and WP:V is policy, and they allow embedded links; in fact that is what most editors clearly prefer as is obvious by the number of pages that use them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reconsider proposed decision regarding SEWilco bot

I'd like to ask the committee to consider the implications of the proposed decision regarding SEWilco's bot. It says:

3) SEWilco may continue to use his bot without first consulting with the editors of an article on its talk page, but may not restore any revert of its edits unless after discussion on the talk page of the article a consensus is reached that the Wikipedia:Footnotes format is preferred.

SEWilco is waging a campaign against numbered embedded links as sources (e.g. like this ([110]) in the same way that Jguk waged one against BCE/CE. He is going around deleted embedded links (with and without his bot) and imposing a footnote system on articles he otherwise has no interest in, without prior discussion on the talk page. He is continuing to do it even as this case is on-going, for example here [111] despite an objection. [112]

The proposed decision goes against Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_cite_sources, which favors the citation style used by the first major contributor, in order to avoid edit warring in this area. It states: "An article's previous content contributors usually know the established practice - if possible, follow their lead if the article already has references ... If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the style used should be that of the first major contributor."

The proposed decision will allow editors to go around changing citation styles on articles they have never edited, in areas they have no knowledge of, without prior discussion on the talk page, which is exactly the situation WP:CITE is trying to avoid. Although under the proposed decision, SEWilco may not revert any reversion without discussion, all he has to do to make life difficult for other editors is make several edits after changing the citation style, which makes simple reversion awkward.

I feek we should be encouraging editors to provide sources in any format whatsoever, and not force them to negotiate their way through a complex footnote system imposed by an editor who then moves on and makes no further contribution to the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. Please note that, not only is SEWilco continuing to remove embedded links and replace them with footnotes as this case continues, he is also reverting when the embedded links are reinserted, [113] even though an objection was made on the talk page. [114] SlimVirgin (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As I pointed out on the evidence page [115] SEWilco continues to convert direct embedded links to his footnotes style. SEWilco is one of the regular editors of the Sea level change article as he states in the talk page there. However William M. Connolley is also a major contributor there, and SEWilco knows full well that WMC and others who edit and watch the page are opposed to his footnote system. Thus I view SEWilco's recent undiscussed actions there as: 1. a direct provocation toward those editors he knows to be opposed to his system and 2. a statement of total contempt for this ongoing arbcom case and the Rfc. In my view these actions call for more stringent sanctions. Vsmith 01:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco cautioned

3) SEWilco is reminded that Wikipedia does not operate by strict application of policies or guidelines or decisions of the Arbitration Committee but by consensus. He is advised to be more responsive to the reactions of other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
  1. According to Wikipedia consensus means a general agreement among the members of a given group or community[116] Which leaves us with three questions;
What group or community? The whole Wikipedia community, the active editors of an article or some other group?
What constitutes a general agreement? Is that 51% of that group of community ,66% or an other percentage?
How is this consensus measured? Is a poll taken, rough impression of the discussion taken or is there some other mechanism to measure consensus?
I would like an anwsers to these questions because they clearify the working of the Arbcom.

--MichaelSirks 19:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity. If I find 40 Wikipedians who want to ban WMC from wikipedia for his parole violations then that is what happens? And if 40 isn't enough what number would?--MichaelSirks 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco not to report WMC

4) SEWilco is not to report violations of WMC's parole, leaving enforcement up to other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. So because I respect Arbcom rulings I should ignore them? You're setting precedent for ignoring violations and requiring those who report them to stop reporting them. (SEWilco 16:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. SEWilco has demonstrably engaged in a hostile campaign against WMC that needs to be brought to an end. Phil Sandifer 19:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What evidence supports this comment? (SEWilco 16:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
      • Thirteen reports, mostly weeks or even months old, in the space of less than a week after being told to cut it out by several users & admins since 3RR's for current violations is pretty strong evidence I'd say. - SoM 21:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Parole violations are to be taken seriously, and I reported them. Which part of those reports was hostile? (SEWilco 05:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Reporting parole violations constitued a hostile campaign. This is totaly absurd. He has broken no rule of wikipedia, he actually tried to uphold ruling of the arbcom. --MichaelSirks 22:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco cautioned against harassment

5) SEWilco is cautioned against engaging in behavior that could give the impression of a campaign against other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:
  1. It is OK to report parole violations, but not repeatedly or excessively. If not one of 600 administrators feels the violation is worth action, take that as a clue. Fred Bauder 17:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This especially applies to violations made months ago. Fred Bauder 17:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  1. What does this mean? If I monitor someone hourly and report violations when they occur, is that a campaign? If I ignore someone and report violations when they are noticed, is that a campaign? (SEWilco 16:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. Bauder: I don't think I repeated any violation reports. And as I stated in the 3RR article linked to in my above material, I was aware that Administrators are not required to take action. Although admins are not required to act, users are still expected to report violations. (SEWilco 05:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. At a minimum - I'm unconvinced, particularly in terms of his treatment of this arbcom case, that this is enough. Phil Sandifer 19:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to provide sufficient information to this case, please inform me if I haven't given enough. (SEWilco 05:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

SEWilco on harassment parole

6) SEWilco is on harassment parole regarding WMC. If any administrator feels he is being excessively belittling or adversarial towards WMC, they may block him for a short time of up to 48 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. What evidence is there that I have belittled WMC? (SEWilco 16:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  2. What evidence supports that I have been adversarial? (SEWilco 16:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  3. Why is there no similar proposal to protect me from his actions? (SEWilco 16:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  4. After how many days can I ignore this parole? (SEWilco 05:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Comment by others:
  1. I think this is necessary. Phil Sandifer 19:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree - SoM 21:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What the hell means; excessively belittling or adversarial towards WMC. If there is one person who belittles others it is WMC. some examples;
More wild invention on your part.[117]
(Re-rm gossip)[118] as reverting comment
You're trolling. Do come back when you have something to say.[119]
etc. etc.
So will there be a equal ban on WMC.--MichaelSirks 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Enforcement by ban

1) Should SEWilco violate the terms of use of his bot he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall be one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence[edit]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


More