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.
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).
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.
I would like to second this appeal to lift William M. Connolley's parole. El_C 12:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
My statement is not yet complete. This is a complex case. ( SEWilco 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC))
There are some additional people involved, particularly those affected by the remedies and those involved in implementing and enforcing the remedies.
Or, you know, they could be sane. Phil Sandifer 04:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
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))
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))
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).
Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote because such was specifically requested by SEWilco 06:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC).
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."
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
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.
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.
1) As they relate to William M. Connolley some of the matters considered here were considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute.
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.
3) William M. Connolley has generally adhered to his revert parole, although isolated instances can be found where compliance is incomplete or questionable.
4) SEWilco has made numerous complaints that William M. Connolley has violated his revert parole but in most cases administrators have declined to act.
5) SEWilco has converted articles in the area of climate change to the Wikipedia:Footnotes format [13].
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.
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.
8) The administrator SlimVirgin contacted SEWilco on 24 November and requested compliance with Wikipedia policy [15], see [16].
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].
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].
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]
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.
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.
2.1) The one revert parole placed upon William M. Connolley was an unnecessary move, and is hereby revoked.
3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert citation styles on any articles.
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.
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)