User:SEWilco/Sandbox2

Arbitrary and poorly defined cases are acceptable
The Arbitration Committee may accept requests where:
 * This principle is in opposition to previously existing policy and precedent. ("Decisions on case acceptance", "Usability of evidence presented in arbitration cases")
 * there is no specific request, or the Arbitration Committee is unable to determine what the specific request is
 * earlier steps in dispute resolution have not been tried, and the Arbitration Committee feels they will help
 * one or more of the major disputants cease contributing to Wikipedia (although this does not necessarily have to occur); the case is subject to reactivation if the disputant returns
 * the major disputants fail to present evidence within a reasonable amount of time of the case opening
 * evidence may be used in cases where the principal issues have not been defined


 * Supported by:
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: Arbitration Policy not followed in this case

 * Arbitrators voting to accept this case have not been able to provide a rationale for their acceptance votes, as required by the Arbitration Policy.
 * Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2
 * Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: This is a poorly defined case

 * The Arbitration Committee members are unable to explain their votes for acceptance of this case.
 * Earlier steps in dispute resolution have not been tried.
 * One or more of the major disputants have ceased contributing to Wikipedia.
 * Major disputants have failed to present evidence.
 * The principal issues have not been defined, so proper evidence can not be expected to be provided.


 * Evidence:
 * Discussion and a poll was still under way at Talk:Global_cooling when this case was re-opened.
 * Requests for comment/SEWilco created 22:48, 24 November 2005 by William M. Connolley (diff) while this case was re-opened 27 November 2005, only 3 days later.
 * Arbitrators have been unable to define the specific request and topics for arbitration. Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop
 * This case is a re-opening of a previous case but two parties have not yet participated in this case, and they have not yet presented evidence in this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: Arbitration Committee has not clarified parole enforcement

 * SEWilco requested clarification of enforcement of the case's parole requirements.
 * Clarification has not been supplied. The request has been removed from the prescribed location on Requests for arbitration and moved to the Talk page of this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arbitration rulings and policies are applied equally
Wikipedia participants will apply and enforce rulings and policies equally to all users.
 * This is a new principle.
 * all rulings will be enforced by Wikipedia participants
 * all violations will be regarded seriously
 * violations by all users will be enforced equally


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It is not fair to force two participants off Wikipedia while not enforcing the ruling upon another participant. (SEWilco 08:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC))


 * Comment by others:

Arbitration rulings

 * Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.
 * Arbitration rulings on the English Wikipedia are binding on contributors to the project and violations will be regarded seriously.
 * Wikipedia users are expected to abide by rulings made by the Arbitration Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: SEWilco and other users supported arbitration rulings

 * SEWilco and other users reported violations of arbitration rulings.


 * Evidence:
 * SEWilco attempted to report violations to the Arbitration Committee. As violations are to be treated as 3RR violations, they were reported to WP:AN/3RR.  Upon request, also reported to WP:AN/I.
 * Violations were first noticed (diff) by and reported by : 15:51, 28 October 2005
 * MichaelSirks msg, MichaelSirks notification, Rd232 msg, msg, JonGwynne notification, Cortnonin notification, TDC notification, SEWilco inquiry.
 * Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested&oldid=26792814#William Connolley.27s parole - enforcement (deleted in this edit by Guettarda after SEWilco pointed out this page is reserved for AC members)
 * The preceding discussion was moved to the adjoining Talk page.
 * MichaelSirks again reported in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration at 19:19, 4 November 2005.
 * SEWilco reported violations 12 times to WP:AN/3RR, based on ruling stating that violations were to be treated as 3RR violations. (AN/3RR with reports) 12 reports from 20:31, 15 November 2005 to 16:04, 25 November 2005, a very slow pace compared to most Wikipedia discussion/voting forums.
 * Although WP:AN/3RR seemed like the proper place for violation reports, at SlimVirgin's suggestion [ one report was posted to WP:AN/I.  SlimVirgin then blocked SEWilco based on report timing assumptions from WP:AN/3RR.
 * SEWilco then asked for clarification on behalf of Administrators. RFAR#Are arbitration decisions to be taken seriously in climate change dispute? (SEWilco had not used that page earlier due to instructions that it is not for discussion, and the parole rules are clear.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: William M. Connolley did not abide by arbitration rulings

 * William M. Connolley violated his parole many times.


 * Evidence:
 * Ignores parole requirements: "… I discuss on the talk pages where this is useful, and use edit summaries where that suffices. Anything more would be unreasonably burdensome.… William M. Connolley 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)."
 * List of some obvious violations: Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2/Evidence
 * The first violation which has been noticed took place just days after his parole started.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: William M. Connolley did enforce arbitration rulings

 * William M. Connolley used arbitration rulings upon others.


 * Evidence:
 * Rv and reporting of suspected JonGwynne edit:


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Administrators

 * Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies.
 * Administrators are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Bans and blocks

 * All Administrators are expected to abide by rulings and decrees from Jimbo Wales, the Board, and the Arbitration Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: Administrators did not take violations seriously

 * Evidence:
 * There has been a lack of enforcement of reported violations by administrators.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: Arbitration Committee did not support arbitration rulings

 * The Arbitration Committee did not implement the arbitration rulings.
 * The Arbitration Committee has ignored violations of arbitration rulings.


 * Evidence:
 * Remedies were defined in previous case.
 * Details of the remedies were not placed in Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested.
 * Details of a previous case against a participant, JonGwynne, had been placed there.
 * A summary of the case was not added to Requests for arbitration/Completed requests (history)
 * Parole is poorly supported.
 * There is no method defined for reporting violations. (there are no links to support or deny this although such have been requested)
 * Those involved in the above were called to the case to explain the above. This was removed by Fred Bauer (diff).
 * SEWilco and others attempted to report violations to the Arbitration Committee.
 * Violations were first noticed (diff) by and reported by : 15:51, 28 October 2005
 * Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested&oldid=26792814#William Connolley.27s parole - enforcement (deleted in this edit by Guettarda after SEWilco pointed out this page is reserved for AC members)
 * The preceding discussion was moved to the adjoining Talk page.
 * MichaelSirks again reported in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration at 19:19, 4 November 2005.

WP:AN/3RR.
 * SEWilco asked for clarification on behalf of Administrators. RFAR#Are arbitration decisions to be taken seriously in climate change dispute? (SEWilco had not used that page earlier due to instructions that it is not for discussion, and the parole rules are clear.)
 * Clarification has not been provided. There continues to be no defined means for reporting and enforcing Parole violations.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Source citations

 * Cite sources.
 * It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits, especially on controversial articles.
 * Removal of references from articles is generally considered inappropriate.
 * While the content of articles is the province of Wikipedia editors, a number of Wikipedia policies relate to content in peripheral ways; for example, it is desirable to limit reversions and to provide adequate references for material included in articles. See Reversions, Edit war, Three revert rule, Check your facts, Cite sources and Verifiability


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: SEWilco did insert additional citation content

 * SEWilco did supply additional content to source citation descriptions, generally at least a document title and date accessed.
 * Additional citation content supports Verifiability policy.
 * Title and date are helpful in finding replacement source material.


 * Evidence:
 * SEWilco provided titles for source material and problems were fixed with existing sourcing (such as links to pages which produce a 404 error). (Kyoto Protocol diff) (Global cooling diff) — particularly see the Notes section. Kyoto Protocol talk: Global cooling talk:
 * The existing appearance of source notations was followed, such as by replacing numbered links with numbered links. Kyoto Protocol talk:   Global cooling talk:
 * WP:CITET templates were used in various ways to provide citation details. (Kyoto Protocol diff) (Global cooling diff)
 * The Wikipedia best practices in Footnotes were used. Kyoto Protocol talk:    Global cooling talk:
 * Verifiability prefers more detail about source material over less material. Kyoto Protocol talk:  Global cooling talk:


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Consensus

 * Although discussion is always encouraged, the Arbitration Committee does not expect users to compromise in all circumstances; doing so would serve only to support cranks and POV pushers.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: Policy overrides any consensus for a bad article

 * Consensus on article content may not violate policies such as Verifiability.


 * Evidence:
 * Verifiability.
 * AC Principle.
 * AC Principle


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a link repository

 * Wikipedia is not a link repository See What Wikipedia is not


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: Global cooling article is now a collection of links

 * The article Global cooling has URL-only links scattered within the text.
 * Finding the entry in the article's References section which matches a URL in the text requires comparing it to all URLs in the References section.
 * The URLs which must be compared are not visible on many browsers except in a "Status" line, using mouse or cursor movement to do comparison.


 * Evidence:
 * 


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: Connolley and others did delete reference information

 * William M. Connolley removed reference information from articles.


 * Evidence:
 * SEWilco had to repeatedly restore source citation information. (see edits below)
 * William M. Connolley removed reference information from articles, generally replacing them only with links. Kyoto Protocol:
 * William M. Connolley removed reference information from Kyoto Protocol citations:
 * Vsmith removed reference information from articles. Kyoto Protocol:  Global cooling:
 * Vsmith replaced Wikipedia best practice Footnotes references with a fragile tangle containing errors which are not possible with WP:FN references. After being informed there were two erroneous links  it took 8 days for him to find those two, and another similar error.
 * Nandesuka removed reference information from Global cooling:


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: Kyoto Protocol article is now difficult to maintain

 * The reference style in Kyoto Protocol is difficult to maintain.


 * Evidence:
 * Vsmith replaced Wikipedia best practice Footnotes references with a fragile tangle containing errors which are not possible with WP:FN references. After being informed there were two erroneous links  it took 8 days for him to find those two, and another similar error.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Fact: SEWilco matched the consensus style of references

 * The articles Kyoto Protocol and Global cooling contained references to source information in the form of URL-only links, which were displayed as numbered links. SEWilco used Footnotes references which were displayed as numbered links. (diff) (diff)
 * When Vsmith changed the style of references away from old consensus style, SEWilco matched the new style using Footnotes references.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Abuse of processes

 * Statement(s) of principle
 * Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.
 * Removing evidence from an Arbitration page is unacceptable. Modification of other users' edits of Arbitration pages, inserting peripheral material, and especially deleting them or portions of them will not be tolerated.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Assume good faith

 * Statement(s) of principle
 * Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary in keeping with our long-standing tradition of being open and welcoming.
 * Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.
 * Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Civility / disruption / reasonableness

 * Statement(s) of principle
 * Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.
 * Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably with respect to editing and relating to other users. Editing practices that cause disruption to the normal functioning of Wikipedia will not be tolerated.
 * Users should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; that is, users should not act in bad faith.
 * Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes aganist established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Writers rules of engagement.
 * Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others.
 * Wikipedia editors are expected to be courteous and respectful towards other editors, especially those they may have a dispute with. As Wikiquette explains: "Recognize your own biases and keep them in check."
 * Wikipedia users are encouraged to responsibly identify problems, discuss them with other users and, if possible without violating Wikipedia policy, solve them.
 * Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgement while enforcing this policy. All users are encouraged to remove personal attacks on sight.
 * The Wiki software and Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. Should disputes arise editors are expected to engage in research, discussion with other users, and make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles.
 * The community has made it abundantly clear, over the course of many discussions that they do not feel it is appropriate to "troll" on Wikipedia, or to engage in disruptive editing. While there is some dissent over method of enforcement, and over whether individual Wikipedians are or are not engaging in "trolling," there is little dissent over this underlying principle.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Ownership of articles

 * Statement(s) of principle
 * Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community-at-large, and come to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia.
 * No individual or selected group of people is entitled the right to control the content of an article. (See Ownership of articles.)
 * No person or group has the right to control content of Wikipedia articles. See Ownership of articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Personal attacks (and associated principles)

 * Statement(s) of principle
 * Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile enviroment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encylopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a bunker mentality).
 * No personal attacks.
 * Wikipedia users are expected to avoid personal attacks on other users.
 * Wikipedia editors must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.
 * Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy and avoid personal attacks.
 * Users are expected to avoid using personal attacks.
 * Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia, see No personal attacks.
 * Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. (See No personal attacks.)
 * Personal attacks which occur during the course of arbitration either on the arbitration pages or on the talk pages of the arbitrators fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators.
 * Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth.
 * Making personal attacks on other users is not permitted.
 * Personal attacks damage the community and deter users, see No personal attacks


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Policies and practices

 * Statement(s) of principle
 * In general, Wikipedia policies are formulated through wide discussion by Wikipedia users who attempt by a process of consenus to make policies which advance the basic goal of creating a free and neutral encyclopedia. Wikipedia policy is discussed in Policies and guidelines and the associated articles How to create policy, Consensus, Assume good faith, Village pump (policy), See Policies_and_guidelines and.
 * In order for a proposed Wikipedia policy to be considered binding it is desirable that the proposal be widely publicized and discussed and Consensus reached.
 * In determination of specialized areas of policy, discussion on the talk page of the relevant project page plays a central role. It is important that sufficient interest be generated in the discussion to formulate a valid consensus.
 * Discussions of proposed policy are sometimes inconclusive or involve only a small group of users, thus questions arise of whether a valid policy has been formulated.
 * In instances where policy is ambiguous the solution is more discussion, not struggle through revert wars, assumption of bad faith or personal attacks.
 * Contributors are expected to follow Wikipedia official policy, particularly the three-revert rule, prohibition against personal attacks, and neutral point of view policy. POV pushing, revert warring, and personal attacks will not be tolerated.
 * The Arbitration Committee may consider current community norms and practice, regardless of whether the community have got as far as writing up an "official" policy on the matter, in making its decisions. This is an Arbitration Committee, not a court of law, and the community has empowered us to make such judgements by ratifying the Arbitration policy. By the same policy, we are to apply such judgements with common sense, discretion, and an eye to the expectations of the community
 * Contributors are expected to obey Wikipedia policies, including the three revert rule.
 * Certain customary practices used on Wikipedia are not written down, but can be ascertained by communication with other users.
 * Wikipedia users who demonstrate over a period of time that they are unable or unwilling to conform to Wikipedia policy may be banned.
 * Any Wikipedia user may create a page such as Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy proposing a change in Wikipedia policy requesting discussion and feedback from other users.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Staying cool when the editing gets hot

 * Statement(s) of principle
 * When editing on highly conflicted topics, editors should not allow themselves to be goaded into ill-considered edits and policy violations. Administrators in particular have a responsibility to set an example by staying cool when the editing gets hot.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Talk pages

 * Statement(s) of principle
 * Article talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of the article, what information might properly be included in the article, and sources of information regarding the subject; they are not forums for debate of the topic or issues related to the topic except where such debate has a potential impact on the content of the article. Adding large amounts of material to talk pages which does not relate to the article in the fashion above is considered inappropriate.
 * Wikipedia provides a variety of forums, including article and user talk pages, for communication by Wikipedia users regarding content of articles and Wikipedia policies and decisions which Wikipedia users are encouraged to use in furtherance of Wikipedia policies and goals.
 * Aggressive use of Wikipedia forums to mobilize support for point of view editing results in exacerbation of conflict.
 * The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. Excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is "unwiki. Wikipedia editors make use of a variety of methods to avoid excessive cross-posting.
 * It is the practice on Wikipedia when a talk page becomes too long for convenient editing to move older material to archives linked from the main page.
 * Talk pages may be refactored in order to improve their usability, brief, unbiased summaries of past discussion may be useful, especially for new editors, see Refactoring.
 * When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: