For some reason, this Request for Clarification was moved here:

• Please confirm to Admins whether ArbComm decisions are to be enforced, specifically for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute#Remedies. Please advise whether the bans and restrictions are to be enforced.
  • If that dispute should not have been enforced, advise Admins whether or how to compensate for Cortonin or JonGwynne lost Wikipedia time due to time served in the climate change dispute.
  • Apparently William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles has not been enforced. I have been reporting violations (see WP:AN/3RR), and both administrators and William M. Connolley have given indications of not following Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Arbitration rulings and are not regarding violations seriously. Indeed, William M. Connolley has admitted ignoring the parole terms when he finds them burdensome. [1]
• Please advise how violations should be reported. Usually users are supposed to report what they notice. I have been blocked due to reporting this no-Talk violation by User:SlimVirgin after having been invited by same to post additional violation reports to WP:AN/I (and such was noted in the report). I've made only 13 reports of his most obvious violations (about one a day is too fast for admins accusing me of spamming).
  • Inform Admins whether there is a statute of limitations on reporting violations. I did not see a /Precedent. Does it make sense that violations which are noticed during the term of the parole be ignored? ("You paid the court fine with a forged check, but we did not catch you until half the term of your parole had expired…")
  • Existing instructions on ArbComm and Admin pages should be clarified for reporting violations. There are limitations which make it difficult to find where to report violations.
  • I suggest that you consider having the Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee supervise the climate change dispute's remedy restrictions.
  • I suggest that you consider having William M. Connolley report his past violations to the ArbComm, in two types of violations: those for which he did not edit the Talk page for each revert, and those for which he did not (or may not) have met the content requirements for the required Talk page entry.
    • The others for whom remedies have been stated should also be required to do same, but their Contributions are much simpler to evaluate because of bans and a lack of activity.

— (SEWilco 16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• WP:POINT. Thank you. Phil Sandifer 16:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The most disruptive consequence of WMC's parole violations seems to be SEWilco's response on WP:AN/3RR, WP:AN/I, and now here. Wikipedia is not a penal colony; if WMC's actions didn't upset anyone enough to prompt a request for admin enforcement until three weeks or a month after the fact.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether a trickle of reports is disruptive is a matter for WP:AN/3RR; 12 reports in a single day wouldn't be unusual in many other Wikipedia reporting/voting areas. If the quantity of violations is the problem, remember WMC created the violations. ArbComm has an outstanding ruling to clarify. (SEWilco 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

He shouldn't have to beg, but on the other hand no point to post stale infractions. Fred Bauder 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No he shouldn't have to beg but I've been following his postings on AN/3RR and they are clearly malicious in an attempt to get WMC blocked and several blatant violations of WP:POINT as it's gone from listing in good faith to trying to be disrputive just because people refuse to give in to his vendetta to have another user blocked. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion as to whether my faith is good. Any clarification on the questions? (SEWilco 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

In what way is an infraction during parole "stale"? Address the above clarification request on the subject. (SEWilco 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

It's not necessarily whether the infractions are stale or not but the fact that you are listing numerous (13 at this point so far I think) which is beyond trying to just have the arbcom ruling enforced. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please advise how violations are to be reported. Or are you proposing that the ArbComm approve performing dozens of violations as a method for escaping parole? (SEWilco 04:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Again, please advise how violations are to be reported. Speaking as an outsider, I suggest a four-word answer: "In a timely fashion." --Calton | Talk 06:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In a timely fashion after they are discovered. Certainly. (SEWilco 14:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No. "In a timely fashion." Period. Full stop. End of sentence. Simple. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you focus on this arbitration case and the allegations that you are harassing WMC. If you are, apologize and quit doing it. If you are not, please explain how WMC's activities require enforcement of the prior decision. Fred Bauder 15:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking whether ArbComm decisions should be enforced. If they won't be, of what use is Arbitration? As mentioned above, see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Arbitration rulings. (SEWilco 16:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I don't understand why this was moved to this page. Much of this Request for Clarification applies to other ArbComm cases and paroles, such as how parole violations are supposed to be reported. (SEWilco 23:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to take the opportunity to thank SEWilco for pointing out (admittedly, in a rather disruptive way, but there you go...) how inappropriate the restriction on WMC was, and how we have the need to remove it.

James F. (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEW claims that "Whether a trickle of reports is disruptive is a matter for WP:AN/3RR". That's interesting, as it doesn't seem to have been his position when he was being told to stop doing so, on the grounds that they were, well, disruptive, on the page in question. Including after he had it pointed to him that this case was about to be opened and to include looking at this behaviour, and right up to the point where he was blocked for it. By any reasonable criterion, the noticeboard has determined that it was disruptive, SEW was suitably warned, and continued regardless, so he can surely have no complaint if the arbcom chooses to examine this. Likewise, if he won't accept the noticeboard's oft-expressed requirement for timeliness, I can see nothing for it but for the arbcom to look at that. Especially as the previous arbcom ruling was at every turn SEW's justification for continuing to report these alleged violations, after being repeatedly told they merited no action. Alai 03:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You took "Whether a trickle" out of the context of the preceding comment "The most disruptive consequence of WMC's parole violations". I was referring to whatever AN/3RR considered disruption being separate from disruption caused by WMC's activities. And I was actually blocked in AN/I for a single report. Again: just where are people supposed to report violations? (SEWilco 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I'm seeing no missing context of any import here, unless you simply forgot to add it at the time; but regardless, if you don't think AN/3RR is itself competent to judge whether you were being disruptive there, you'll surely welcome that being determined here. You were blocked on AN/I not so much for the "single report" as for that on top of the previous 12 on the first page, I think that's fairly clear. Simply finding a fresh place to report these one at a time, getting further and further into the dim and distant past, hardly makes these any less disruptive.

Again: if timely, on AN/3RR; if a month old, then nowhere. Same places in both cases as for actual 3RR vios. And if you really must report multiple alleged violations on the same article, consolidate them. None of this is new information to you. Alai 05:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still no clarification as to where anyone is supposed to report parole violations. (SEWilco 05:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

1. I have not made a statement in this RfAr, why is one there?
2. It also makes it appear that Snowspinner posted to the page, which would make him a participant.
3. If this is a re-opening, why does this appear to be a new RfAr?
   1. If this is a re-opening, why are Cortonin and JohGwynne listed as "Other parties"?

— (SEWilco 16:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Some information was not supplied which is in the template:

• Case summary
  • Briefly summarize case. No details.
• Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • (Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)
• Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(SEWilco 03:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I usually set up arbitration pages. I use the material in the Request for arbitration and plug it into the slots on the new arbitration. That is where your "statement" came from. Your are welcome to replace it all (no need to line it out) with a current statement. Snowspinner made a brief post to the Request. I would not consider him a participant. We need a new page for a reopening if there is significant new material, in this case questions regarding your behavior. Cortonin and JohGwynne are listed as "Other parties" because they no longer edit on Wikipedia. A case summary is often skipped as none is provided and not having researched the case it is hard to make a summary. The confirmation of notice and information regarding prior steps in dispute resolution are never included in the project page for a new case. Fred Bauder 20:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you've just opened a case without a summary because none was provided? Just what is being arbitrated? There were plenty of loose threads already, and now we have a "case" about...what? I can weave those threads in many ways, but some direction may be useful. (SEWilco 05:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

That's not a bad point; it's a rather loose precedent to set even the appearance of "start a case and see where it leads". I'm inferring the intent is in essence, "re-open previous case and additionally consider subsequent conduct of WMC and SEW", which might be worth stating at even that level of abstraction. Alai 05:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming the statements on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2, it would seem that the ArbCom is being asked to examine three issues.

1. WMC's parole—per requests of Stephan Schulz, El C, and WMC, should it be lifted?
2. Reporting of parole violations—SEWilco requests clarification of where violations should be reported.
3. SEWilco's behaviour—has SEWilco's behaviour at WP:AN/3RR, WP:AN/I, WP:AER, and elsewhere violated Wikipedia standards, and does it constitute harassment of WMC?

That's what I can see off the top of my head. The ArbCom may have identified other issues as well; that's presumably one of the reasons why the workshop and proposed decision pages are openly accessible—if it seems that an issue has been overlooked or misinterpreted, there is ample opportunity for comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this question as it has given me an opportunity to consider how pages for new cases are set up. Fred Bauder 20:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In civil society it is one's duty to report a parole violation, here in Wikipedia reporting the repeated violations of a person's parole becomes a malicious act. (Not the person who breaks his parole, nor the commite who issued the parole, but the persons who reports the parole violation.) The absurdity of it all. If WMC thought the parole was not fair he should have complaint when his parole was issued. The ArbCom was notified of the ambiguities in it's verdict, but didn't issue a clearification.(because SEWilco interpreted correctly) It is argued that it is SEWilco duty to ask for clarification. Why? It is the task of ArbCom to issue clarifications when it's verdict's are unclear.

Some argue that the contributions WMC makes to wikipedia places him on a other platform, where he doesn't have to conform to such bothersome things as paroles. I would like to point out the following facts; - To have more kinds of rules depending on who you are no way to make a balanced encyclopedia. - WMC is more activist than scientist(for instance he has admitted that it was his purpose to discredite sceptics.)

I hope sanity returns. --MichaelSirks 20:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity would be nice. Sanity would have included - as I suggested some time ago - one of those who had issues with WMC's parole requesting clarification of the terms of that parole from ArbCom, since in some respects the relevant paragraph was badly written (ambiguous, unclear).

Clarification was asked, but not given.--MichaelSirks 21:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco's lengthy whining (again) about lack of enforcement ("Are arbitration decisions to be taken seriously in climate change dispute?") [2] was never likely to get a helpful response.

So he didn't ask nicely.--MichaelSirks 21:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This whole issue has deteriorated into bureaucratic mess (reopening ArbCom case, RFC, Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?), due to some people's wishes to pursue a personal vendetta rather than the best interests of Wikipedia. Rd232 ^talk 09:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal vendetta. He has a parole or hasn't got a parole. And the person who reports these parole violations is prosecuted.--MichaelSirks 21:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be simpler if the ArbComm simply follows its own rules and takes violations seriously. Apparently nobody had questions about the probation, and the page where clarifications are to be requested is clearly labeled to discourage other inquiries. Right now, if you noticed a violation in a random case, which page says where to report the violation? Or perhaps I should say "where to report the violation without the reporter being prosecuted". (SEWilco 16:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think anyone has to fear prosecution. You were not banned after the first report, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the seventh, the eighth, the nineth, the tenth, the eleventh, or the twelfth, despite the fact that people have carefully explained to you that no-one is interested in uncontroversial reverts that are more than two weeks old.

The reverts were not uncontroversial.--MichaelSirks 21:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently nobody noticed for some weeks. --Stephan Schulz 22:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They noticed it, they didn't know that WMC was on parole. Even the administrators didn't know he was on parole. I only accidentily knew he was on parole. --MichaelSirks 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use common sense. BTW, it leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth that you seem to be interested in enforcement only and exclusively against an editor who disagrees with you over contents and NPOV. --Stephan Schulz 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in this case, being prosecuted for something. Something which nobody can define. And I might have helped enforcement of violations by other random editors if someone had pointed out those editors had violated parole. As it is, I haven't been dealing with WMC's POV except his preference for unsourced material and attacking me. (SEWilco 21:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

SEWilco's bot is currently (16 Dec) converting references to his footnotes style without discussion. This is occurring on Sea level rise [3]. I have posted evidence of this [4]. He seems to be acting in contempt of the current procedings as he is well aware that editors on climate related articles are opposed to his footnote style. Vsmith 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that SEWilco is being censured for here? The bot-assisted edits look entirely correct to me; I've made many similar edits, not always even quite as cleanly. He seems to be modifying articles to a much superior citation style. The changes are completely in accord with Wikipedia:Citing sources and with the practices that have recently been favored for newly featured articles. What on earth was objectionable? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He 's being censored because he had the nerve to report the parole violations of WMC. A parole imposed on WMC by the arbcom. Which they didn't want to enforce. This arbcom is biased beyond belief. But what do you expect when they themself state; And yes, the doctrine of natural justice and procedural due process are not being followed here. Welcome to reality. --MichaelSirks 09:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco managed to demonstrate to the arbcom that WMC's parole was a bad idea. He demonstrated this by using it, in bad faith, to gain advantage in an editing dispute. He was informed, multiple times, that the manner in which he was reporting parole was disruptive. He was given many chances to modify the manner in which he reported those parole violations. He chose to continue making those reports in a disruptive manner. So, yes: engaging in "good" activities can get you in trouble, when you do them in a disruptive manner. This outcome seems to me to be entirely correct. If SEWilco wanted to avoid censure, then all he had to do was take one of the many opportunities offered to him to not act disruptively. He chose to ignore those opportunities. He is now facing the consequences of his choices. Nandesuka 14:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But still believes he did absolutely nothing wrong. Fred Bauder 14:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence was presented that I was "using it, in bad faith, to gain advantage in an editing dispute"? Was there a Finding of Fact to that effect supported by evidence? When I modified my manner of reporting Wikipedia:Parole violations I was blocked before I could report most violations. And WMC did not get in trouble for dozens of obvious violations. I am facing the consequences of WMC's large number of violations and the ArbComm's arbitrary actions. (SEWilco 15:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not an Arbcom member, and I wasn't a party to this action, so I really can't answer your questions, except to say that, as an admin uninvolved with the underlying dispute (I don't particularly favor one or the other citation format), I explained to you that your actions were disruptive to the proper functioning of WP:AN/3RR. Other admins told you that they found your actions disruptive as well. You chose to continue being disruptive. It seems clear to me that this case would not have been reopened had you not acted in this manner. The case being reopened is the proximate cause of the current restrictions placed on you. If you're looking for something to blame, therefore, I suggest you examine the interface between your chair and your computer's keyboard. Nandesuka 16:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how reporting a parole violation can be disruptive. Can 600 adminstrators not handle 20 reports of parole violations in 20 days??? Please explain? If I try to enforce a ruling of the arbcom and act in accordance with the rules of wikipedia but one of the 600 administrators tells me to stop, should I stop. Please explain? If there is a party to blame it is the arbcom for given a parole to WMC which they don't want to be enforced. Or WMC for breaking his parole. --MichaelSirks 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]