Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 14:52, 2 December 2005 (Give reason for acceptance, Remove inappropriate material inserted by SEWilco). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:52, 2 December 2005 by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) (Give reason for acceptance, Remove inappropriate material inserted by SEWilco)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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)

  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 (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.
  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. 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

�(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)

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).

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.


Enforcement