From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

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."

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:


Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 00:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Raul654 17:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC) - yes, yes, yes, yes, yes reply
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. ➥the Epopt 17:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

SEWilco's use of Wikipedia:Footnotes

5) SEWilco has converted articles in the area of climate change to the Wikipedia:Footnotes format [1].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:


Conflict over footnote format

6) William M. Connolley and others disagreed with this change to the formatting of footnotes and have reverted, see [2] where WMC reverts with the comment, "rv to consensus version". An RfC was filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco which addresses this conflict.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

SEWilco reminded of policy

8) The administrator SlimVirgin contacted SEWilco on 24 November and requested compliance with Wikipedia policy [3], see [4].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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 [5].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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 [6].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Reaction to SEWilco's bot

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

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Fred Bauder 00:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) It's mostly ignored (or unnoticed), often opposed, and sometimes praised. reply
  2. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) I do not believe that this accurately represents community opinion toward SEWilco's bot. reply
  3. Yes, a second reading of the evidence convinced me of my mistake. James F. (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. This is too difficult for me to guage Raul654 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. A few users either way does not a consensus make. Some people like it and think it's doing good work, sure. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

SWEilco's attitude

12) As late as December 16, 2005, SWEilco was running his bot on a climate related articles (in the case of [7], 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. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC). Note additional information on multiple reversions. reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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.

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (But also...) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

SEWilco's use of bot

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.

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Fred Bauder 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Very bad precedent. reply
  2. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Bots should never be allowed to make unsupervised changes which are not supported by consensus or by policy. Since the changes this bot is making are supported neither by consensus nor by policy, the bot should not be allowed to run unsupervised. reply
  3. James F. (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Now that it's put like that, yes, I have erred. reply
Abstain:

SEWilco's conversion of citations

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

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Fred Bauder 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Raul654 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  6. ➥the Epopt 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. James F. (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC) As this seems to be a problem. If it is both necessary and desired, someone else will do it. reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.

Support:
  1. I think a mere warning is quite suitable, but this should back it up. Fred Bauder 13:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. I agree that this probably (hopefully) isn't necessary, but as we've pointed out before, Probation shouldn't have any effect on what an editor can do if they're reasonable in their actions. James F. (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Raul654 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Note removal of preamble. reply
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  7. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators Information

General

Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Move to close ➥the Epopt 17:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  2. Concur. Jayjg (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  3. Raul654 19:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  4. Fred Bauder 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  5. Yes, close. James F. (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037734385"