Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 2005-11-24 22:59:04), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

nb: SEW has been notified: [1]

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

SEWilco has made some valuable contributions to parts of wikipedia in the past, but has become pointlessly disruptive recently.

  • SEW has a fondness for his "footnote" style of referencing, and has been trying to bludgeon it into a number of articles despite opposition, most notable Kyoto Protocol and global cooling. There is a clear consensus against his style there, yet he continually reverts and seems unable to understand that is style is not liked.
  • He has been indulging in a vendetta against me, spamming the 3RR page with spurious complaints, despite being told by numerous admins to stop wasting everyones time. This is linked to the footnotes stuff, and to the climate change dispute.

[Note: In my opinion SEW's skepic contributions to climate change were unhelpful in the past; they are not being raised in this RFC because SEW seems to have stopped editing the substance of the climate pages.]

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. SEW has repeatedly inserted his own footnotes system into Kyoto protocol (hist) and Global cooling (hist). Kyoto: e.g. [2], [3], [4] despite a clear consensus to the contrary: he has been reverted by me [5], Vsmith [6], Nandesuka [7] and Guettarda [8]. He has been advised by SlimVirgin that he is acting against policy [9]. Global cooling: he has been reverted by me, Vsmith [10], Nandesuka [11].
  2. He has gone so far that Nandesuka is considering suggesting on AN/I that he be blocked for disruption [12]
  3. SEW has been spamming Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR with baseless complaints ([13], [14], [15] etc, despite being told by several admins to stop: [16], [17], [18], [19], etc etc. (Incidentally, I do accept that the very first one - the 2RR on KP - was justified).
  4. Note that all the parole stuff had previously been raised in the correct forum - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#William_M._Connolley.27s_parole_-_enforcement - and the response was a distinct lack of interest from the arbcomm.

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_Cite_Sources 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.
  2. Wikipedia:Consensus
  3. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk:Kyoto_Protocol#footnotes_vs_inliners
  2. Talk:Global_cooling#Inline_vs_FN
  3. Numerous edits to 3RR mentioned above

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. William M. Connolley 21:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Nandesuka 23:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Stephan Schulz 23:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Vsmith 00:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Guettarda 01:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. SEWilco has been edit warring for weeks to promote the use of footnotes. He tried to delete or reduce information about Harvard referencing and embedded links from Wikipedia:Cite sources, adding misleading material about them, and when that failed, he tried to do the same at Wikipedia:Manual of style, then added to Cite sources that the MoS was the main article on the subject. [20] It has been very disruptive and time-consuming. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 14:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Robert McClenon 19:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. — Dunc|☺ 20:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. My watchlist is full of Kyoto everyday. __earth 02:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

(SEWilco 15:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. SEWilco 15:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I don't have any insight into the footnotes dispute, but I do object to the disruption of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR page by SEWilco. Despite being told by many admins that his reports of alleged violations of WMC's parole from weeks ago were not going to be acted upon and their enforcement would actually be against the spirit of the 3RR rules as many admins saw it, he has continued to spam the 3RR page with report after report of month-old edits made by WMC. I would appreciate it if SEWilco would keep his disputes with WMC on the appropriate talk pages and not continue to disrupt the 3RR page in violation of WP:POINT. (I'm not expressing an opinion for or against the parole itself — these disruptions, by reporting edits that are no longer relevant, do nothing to help enforce the parole.) —Cleared as filed. 19:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. —Cleared as filed. 19:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Nandesuka 19:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. –AzaToth talk 21:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. SchmuckyTheCat 03:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. - -Splashtalk 18:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Alai 18:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Calton | Talk 06:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Ral315 (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the use of footnotes, but they are less of a concern as I certainly do not agree with his behaviour of destroying existing information in the process of adding footnotes as an excuse, spamming the 3RR noticeboard, and other incidents on the verge of violating WP:POINT. -- Natalinasmpf 07:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor outside view

Nothing in this RfC diminishes William M. Connolley's need to abide by the remedy in the Arbitration Case. -Splashtalk 18:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Users who do not agree with this view

WMC's parole is silly and should be ended. If his violation of his parol would hasten it going away via WP:IAR, he should do so, if such violations of his parole would not be otherwise against policy and would add value to the encyclopedia.

  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:DESiegel

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

The footnote citation system seems promising but, as currently implemtned, it is both complex and fragile. In addition, it is not the only system capable of providing full source information for Wikipedia articles. Harvard-style citation is preferred in a number of scientific and academic fields, and if properly used can give all the needed information for users to verify teh sources of statemetns in wikipedia articles. The vital think is to make sure that the source information is provided, and the next most vital thing is to make sure that it is provided in a form which makes it easy for users to find the information as it is wanted. WP:CITE explicitly supports the existance of multiple citatio formats on wikipedia, and in general discourages edits that change from ones system or foramt to anotehr, unless ther is consensus among the editors of the article involved. This guideline should be observed, and it is inappropiate to attempt to impose the footnote system as the single acceptable citation format, or evek the agreed bast bractice on wikipedia, unless and until there exists a genuine consensus to favor that system, which there does not at present.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. DES (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  1. There are errors in the above. WP:FN is not very complex and is getting simpler, and it is more robust than many other methods. WP:FN also makes it easy for users to find the information; in 'global cooling try to figure out which citation is for which section of text (particularly when editing, or if someone fixes a dead link in one of the two places it may exist). Trying to contrast Harvard-style citations as in opposition to WP:FN because WP:FN supports Harvard-style citations; see Alchemy. I added citation information while maintaining the style, whether it was numbered links or Harvard-style labels. (SEWilco 20:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

[edit] Arbitration override

This RfC has been replaced by the acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. That case is improper, but as the Committee is the last resort its case absorbs this one. (SEWilco 05:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

No. You are wrong. There may be an arbitration case involving you, but that certainly does not supersede the community's ability to provide you with comments and feedback on your behavior. The choice to take note of the community's opinion, or to ignore it is, of course, entirely your responsibility. Nandesuka 05:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
That's a bit of a difficult thing to support. The aim of the RFC is not to comment on behaviour for no reason, it is to help SEW modify his behavior if it should be changed or understand it if there were misunderstandings in the aim so that we can write an enyclopedia together better. The situation where there is an RFA open, which may cause specific penalties against him, is hardly the situation where SEW would be well advised to come here and discuss things which may be used against him in arbitration (and it's clear he believes that things will be used against him). If the two things are complementary, the RFA should wait until the results of the RFC are complete. Either that or the arbitrators should define clearly how they will treat information in the RFC. Mozzerati 13:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Since this RfC is broader than the RfAr, in that the RfAr doesn't address the issue of the fight spilling onto pages such as the 3RR, the RfAr isn't superceeding this. Mozzerati's concern means merely that SEWilco doen't need to reply here (which he doesn't anyway). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
SEWilco is continuing to use his bot to delete embedded links in favor of footnotes. See the arbcom workshop, where he's trying to persuade the arbcom to let him do this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2/Workshop#SEWilco.27s_bot. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)