Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 22 March 2005
Additional case merged-in on 27 May 2005
Case Closed on 26 June 2005 at
Case Re-Opened on 27 November 2005
Case Closed on 18:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


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

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

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Complaining witnesses

[edit] Nominal plaintiff

Note: my web access is going to be uncertain over the next few weeks. However, I've said everything I need to say for now. William M. Connolley 19:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Nominal defendant

[edit] Other parties


[edit] Statement by Stephan Schulz

Please limit your statement to 500 words

I move to reopen this case. In my opinion, User:William M. Connolley's revert parole has been imposed more out of a perceived sense of "fairness" ("Hey, it is a bad edit conflict - let's punish all!") than any real need. It does not serve any useful purpose, but instead is used by some users (in particular User:SEWilco, who has a long history of conflict with WMC) to stalk WMC and to claim "violations" even on uncontroversial and trivial edits (e.g. Kyoto protocol). See the dicussions on the Administrators Noticeboard. Let me also point out that 6 month is a very long time nowadays - I've seen people go from newbie to admin in less than 6 month, and I have seen admins being considered for bueraucrats after 5 month as admin. As far as I can tell, few of these people have contributed nearly as much as WMC.

Yes, I know this is against procedure. Yes, I know this might make me part of the case. Let it be so. --Stephan Schulz 10:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by El_C

I would like to second this appeal to lift William M. Connolley's parole. El_C 12:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. I think SEWilco should have sought clarification from the Committee to begin with on whether to pursue infractions retroactively, not to mention the how (though keeping an account of these in his userspace seems sensible enough). Because he did not do this, a number of editors (including himself) ended up wasting valuable time and energy that could have otherwise been spent productively elsewhere. Moreoever, his explanations seem to blur the fine-enough line between acting proactively and retroactively, which I also find unfortunate.
  2. Also, I do not believe the conditions of WMC's parole serve any useful purpose to Wikipedia, in terms of a potential disruption of it by himself. And in that sense, then, they now (I'll avoid the argument of what was or was not in the past) in-practice serve as punitive measures, which I am confident no one here, including SEWilco, feels is a correct way to approach dispute resolution on Wikipedia. El_C 02:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by SEWilco

  1. I am participating under protest, as this case is improper.
    1. This case is arbitrary and poorly defined. [1]
    2. Arbitration Policy has not been not followed in this case. [2]
    3. This is a poorly defined case which improperly included me and made my presentation of evidence overly difficult.
  2. Arbitration rulings and policies should be applied equally to all users. Enforcing rulings unevenly is not fair. Undermining Wikipedia policies and Arbitration precedents creates an unstable environment for all users. [3]
  3. Arbitration rulings are to be taken seriously. [4]
    1. SEWilco and other users supported arbitration rulings. [5]
    2. William M. Connolley did not abide by arbitration rulings, except when trying to force them on others. [6] [7]
    3. The Arbitration Committee did not equally and fully implement the rulings in the previous case. [8]
    4. Administrators did not take violations seriously and should support them. [9]
  4. Wikipedia:Verifiability is an important policy. Details on source material are important to Wikipedia.
  5. Consensus can not be used to support bad article content. [10]
    1. I did insert additional citation content in articles Kyoto Protocol and Global cooling. [11]
    2. I did follow the consensus style of numbered links to sources. [12]

My statement is not yet complete. This is a complex case. (SEWilco 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

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
42, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Comments from the RFAr page

There are some additional people involved, particularly those affected by the remedies and those involved in implementing and enforcing the remedies.

�(SEWilco 04:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Comment by Snowspinner

Or, you know, they could be sane. Phil Sandifer 04:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to William M. Connolley

So you'd rather attack me personally than figure out why your parole was not being enforced? The process has to be wide enough to include the people who did not enforce your parole, as for some reason my aid in enforcing the ArbComm decision is being questioned. (SEWilco 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Response to El_C

1. I think SEWilco should have sought clarification from the Committee to begin with on whether to pursue infractions retroactively, not to mention the how…

I didn't need clarification, so didn't need to ask. Of course there must be a way to report parole violations; as with everything else on Wikipedia one has to figure out where the proper places are. I did find a place to report, but Admins have blocked those places. I'm not able to report before a violation occurs, so of course I'm reporting past violations; it's some people on AN/3RR who added an assumed time limit. So I asked for clarification for myself and on behalf of Admins, as they seem to be having difficulty although of course they surely know that violations will be regarded seriously.

2. Also, I do not believe the conditions of WMC's parole serve any useful purpose to Wikipedia, in terms of a potential disruption of it by himself.

Evidence to show that will be interesting.

And in that sense, then, they now (I'll avoid the argument of what was or was not in the past) in-practice serve as punitive measures, which I am confident no one here, including SEWilco, feels is a correct way to approach dispute resolution on Wikipedia.

Sounds like you're not regarding violations seriously. I wonder what Cortonin and JonGwynne think about the case. (SEWilco 05:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Statement by William M. Connolley

Please limit your statement to 500 words

I'd like to see SEW's recent behaviour examined: he has been malicious. I would also like my parole clarified (well actually I'd like it revoked). SEW's attempt to make the process so wide as to be unmanageable is absurd, and rather typical of his behaviour. William M. Connolley 22:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco. William M. Connolley 23:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC).


[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

  • Re-open, yes. We should include SEWilco's actions as well, I think. James F. (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Re-open, as per James. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Re-open Fred Bauder 02:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Re-open ¥the Epopt 23:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrator's rationale for votes

Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote because such was specifically requested by SEWilco 06:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC).

  • James F.:
  • Kelly Martin:
  • Fred Bauder: There was some question as to whether SEWilco was gaming the revert limitation placed on William M. Connolley by engaging in edit warring. Fred Bauder 14:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • ¥the Epopt:

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

[edit] Principles

[edit] 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."

Passed 7-0

[edit] 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 available and unquestioned, follow the established practice for the appropriate profession or discipline.
  • An article's content contributors usually know the established practice.
  • If the established practice is unavailable or disputed, contributors should decide on a style that they believe strikes an appropriate balance between preserving the readability of the text and making citations as precise and accessible as possible.
  • 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.

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

Passed 7-0

[edit] Enforcement of Arbitration remedies

3) The enforcement of Arbitration remedies are delegated to the Wikipedia administrators. Diligent enforcement depends on the initiative, understanding and cooperation of the Wikipedia administrators. It is not to be expected that they will adhere to the precise terms of a remedy if in the particular situation application of the remedy violates common sense or the good of Wikipedia.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Preferred styles

4) Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for no other purpose than to convert them to their preferred style.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] 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.

Passed 7-0

[edit] 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.

Passed 7-0

[edit] William M. Connolley's adherence to revert parole

3) William M. Connolley has generally adhered to his revert parole, although isolated instances can be found where compliance is incomplete or questionable.

Passed 7-0

[edit] SEWilco's complaints

4) SEWilco has made numerous complaints that William M. Connolley has violated his revert parole but in most cases administrators have declined to act.

Passed 7-0

[edit] SEWilco's use of Wikipedia:Footnotes

5) SEWilco has converted articles in the area of climate change to the Wikipedia:Footnotes format [13].

Passed 7-0

[edit] Conflict over footnote format

6) William M. Connolley and others disagreed with this change to the formatting of footnotes and have reverted, see [14] where WMC reverts with the comment, "rv to consensus version". An RfC was filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco which addresses this conflict.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Requests for comment/SEWilco

7) 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.

Passed 7-0

[edit] SEWilco reminded of policy

8) The administrator SlimVirgin contacted SEWilco on 24 November and requested compliance with Wikipedia policy [15], see [16].

Passed 7-0

[edit] SEWilco's bot

9) 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 as of December 18 [17].

Passed 7-0

[edit] Operation of SEWilco's bot

10) 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 [18].

Passed 7-0


[edit] SWEilco's attitude

11) As late as December 16, 2005, SWEilco was running his bot on a climate related articles (in the case of [19], Sea level rise), despite clear knowledge of the objection of the others editing in this area - see Talk:Sea level rise#SEWilco bot's changes. SEWilco has also been reverting to the bot's changes even after they have been reverted by multiple editors. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Passed 7-0

[edit] Remedies

[edit] SEWilco cautioned

1) 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.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Clarification of the revert parole imposed on William M. Connolley

2) In 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 formatting.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Removal of the revert parole imposed on William M. Connolley

2.1) The one revert parole placed upon William M. Connolley was an unnecessary move, and is hereby revoked.

Passed 7-0

[edit] SEWilco's conversion of citations

3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert citation styles on any articles.

Passed 7-0

[edit] SEWilco placed on Probation

4) SEWilco is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, SEWilco's Probation shall automatically end.

Passed 7-0

[edit] Restrictions on SEWilco

Per the consensus of myself, SlimVirgin, Sean Black, and Zscout370, SlimVirgin has blocked SEWilco for 72 hours for changing the formatting style at Sea level rise. See the post at AN/I about it. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Per the consensus of myself, Ambi, and Extreme Unction, SEWilco is blocked from commenting, either directly or indirectly, on the actions of William M. Connolley. This is to be interpreted liberally. This restriction is to last for one year, or until we believe that SEWilco can distinguish what actions are appropriate in respects to other users. Ral315 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[This has proven somewhat controversial; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SEWilco blocked from commenting on William M. Connolley for discussion on the matter.]
Above Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents moved to [25]. External link used so as to not refer to someone. (SEWilco 06:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC))