| Revision as of 14:48, 2 December 2005 editFred Bauder (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users46,115 edits →Arbitrator's rationale for votes← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:52, 2 December 2005 edit undoFred Bauder (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users46,115 edits Give reason for acceptance, Remove inappropriate material inserted by SEWilcoNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| * {{User|Cortonin}} | * {{User|Cortonin}} | ||
| * {{User|JonGwynne}} | * {{User|JonGwynne}} | ||
| ; The previous arbitrators are parties so they can explain their decisions and how they implemented the remedies. SEWilco thinks that includes the following (anyone else?): | |||
| * {{User|Ambi}} | |||
| * {{User|The Epopt}} | |||
| * {{User|David Gerard}} | |||
| * {{User|Grunt}} | |||
| * {{User|Neutrality}} | |||
| * {{User|Maveric149}} | |||
| * {{User|Nohat}} | |||
| * {{User|Fred Bauder}} | |||
| * {{User|Raul654}} | |||
| * {{User|Sannse}} | |||
| ==== Case summary ==== | ==== Case summary ==== | ||
| Briefly summarize case. No details. | Briefly summarize case. No details. | ||
| ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| (Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.) | |||
| <!-- Those I notified are below. SEWilco. --> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | ||
| Line 140: | Line 114: | ||
| Please see ]. ] 23:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC). | Please see ]. ] 23:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC). | ||
| ==Statement by Cortonin== | |||
| ==Statement by JonGwynne== | |||
| ==Statement by Ambi== | |||
| ==Statement by The Epopt== | |||
| ==Statement by David Gerard== | |||
| ==Statement by Grunt== | |||
| ==Statement by Neutrality== | |||
| ==Statement by Maveric149== | |||
| ==Statement by Nohat== | |||
| ==Statement by Fred Bauder== | |||
| ==Statement by Raul654== | |||
| ==Statement by Sannse== | |||
| <!--Add additional statements if necessary, for each directly involved user. Comments by users outside the dispute go on the talk page.--> | <!--Add additional statements if necessary, for each directly involved user. Comments by users outside the dispute go on the talk page.--> | ||
Revision as of 14:52, 2 December 2005
- Case Opened on 22 March 2005
- Additional case merged-in on 27 May 2005
- Case Closed on 26 June 2005 at
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute
- Case Re-Opened on 27 November 2005
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.
Involved parties
Complaining witnesses
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).
Nominal defendant
Other parties
Case summary
Briefly summarize case. No details.
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
(If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)
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)
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)
- 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.
- Also, I do not believe the conditions of WMC's parole serve any useful purpose to Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. El_C 02:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Statement by SEWilco
Please limit your statement to 500 words
- SEWilco has not made a statement yet. This stuff are 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.
:* The previous parties should participate:
:** William M. Connolley
:** Cortonin
:** JonGwynne
:* The previous arbitrators will have to be parties for information to their decisions and actions in implementing the remedies. I think that includes the following (anyone else?):
:** Ambi
:** ➥the Epopt
:** David Gerard
:** Grun
:** Neutrality
:** mav
:** Nohat
:** Fred Bauder
:** →Raul654
:** sannse
- Persons responsible for implementing the remedies. (Identity unknown)
- Persons responsible for updating Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. (Identity unknown)
- Persons responsible for monitoring parties in remedies. (Identity unknown)
- Persons responsible for enforcing remedies. (Identity unknown)
- Participants in, and all arbitrators who read (whether they took action or not), Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested#William Connolley's parole - enforcement (deleted in the edit 14:29, 29 October 2005 Guettarda).
- Participants in, and all arbitrators who read (whether they took action or not), Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested#William M. Connolley.27s parole - enforcement.
- Participants in, and all arbitrators who read (whether they took action or not), Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration#William M. Connolley.27s parole_violation.
- In addition to examining William M. Connolley's parole, a reopening will have to consider giving back their banned Misplaced Pages time to Cortonin and JonGwynne.
- �(SEWilco 04:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
Comment by Snowspinner
Or, you know, they could be sane. Phil Sandifer 04:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
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))
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages.
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))
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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SEWilco. William M. Connolley 23:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC).
Preliminary decisions
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)
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:
Temporary injunction (none)
Final decision (none yet)
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
Principles
Findings of Fact
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.