Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:46, 25 November 2005

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

nb: SEW has been notified:

• (SEWilco | talk | contributions)

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

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.

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.

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. , , despite a clear consensus to the contrary: he has been reverted by me , Vsmith , Nandesuka and Guettarda . He has been advised by SlimVirgin that he is acting against policy . Global cooling: he has been reverted by me, Vsmith , Nandesuka .
2. He has gone so far that Nandesuka is considering suggesting on AN/I that he be blocked for disruption
3. SEW has been spamming Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR with baseless complaints (, , etc, despite being told by several admins to stop: , , , , 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.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages:Consensus
3. Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point

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

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)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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.}

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

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.

{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.}

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

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.