Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Proposed decision

Indefinite probation
The current proposal will put User:SEWilco on probation indefinitely. It is later clarified that this will be lifted if one year passes without an infraction. I think this is overly harsh. There is always a risk that such a probation or parole is used as a weapon in a conflict over contents in quite a similar manner as WMC's parole was used by SEWilco. While there is a certain poetic justice to this, I think the events also pointed out the risk inherent in such a decision. As the risk of misuse grows over time, I think a shorter probation limit (somewhere in the 4-6 month range) strikes a better balance.--Stephan Schulz 23:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Request to reconsider proposed decision regarding SEWilco bot
I'd like to ask the committee to consider the implications of the proposed decision regarding SEWilco's bot. It says:


 * 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 Footnotes format is preferred.

SEWilco is waging a campaign against numbered embedded links as sources (e.g. like this in the same way that Jguk waged one against BCE/CE. He is going around deleted embedded links (with and without his bot) and imposing a footnote system, often on articles he otherwise has no interest in, without prior discussion on the talk page. He is continuing to do it even as this case is on-going, for example here  restoring it here  after an objection was made on the talk page.

The proposed decision goes against Cite_sources, which favors the citation style used by the first major contributor, in order to avoid edit warring in this area. It states: "An article's previous content contributors usually know the established practice - if possible, follow their lead if the article already has references ... 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."

The proposed decision will allow editors to go around changing citation styles on articles they have never edited, in areas they have no knowledge of, without prior discussion on the talk page, which is exactly the situation WP:CITE is trying to avoid. Although under the proposed decision, SEWilco may not revert any reversion without discussion, all he has to do to make life difficult for other editors is make several edits after changing the citation style, which would mean he couldn't be reverted easily.

I feel we should be encouraging editors to provide sources in any format whatsoever (as the relevant policy Verifiability states) and not force them to negotiate their way through a complex footnote system imposed by an editor who then moves on and makes no further contribution to the article.

SEWilco has argued that his footnote system provides more citation information than using embedded links, but it really doesn't. There are three styles: footnotes, embedded links, and Harvard referencing. With each, information is left after the edit (a numbered embedded link, a superscripted number leading to a footnote, or a Harvard reference). Then with each system, a full citation must be added to the References or Notes section. In other words, all three citation styles require that the same amount of citation information be supplied.

I've left this on the workshop page too, as I'm not sure where to put it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (copied from workshop page) As I pointed out on the evidence page SEWilco continues to convert direct embedded links to his footnotes style. SEWilco is one of the regular editors of the Sea level change article as he states in the talk page there. However William M. Connolley is also a major contributor there, and SEWilco knows full well that WMC and others who edit and watch the page are opposed to his footnote system. Thus I view SEWilco's recent undiscussed actions there as: 1. a direct provocation toward those editors he knows to be opposed to his system and 2. a statement of total contempt for this ongoing arbcom case and the Rfc. In my view these actions call for more stringent sanctions. Vsmith 01:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Move from (Arbitrator-only) page
[On the matter of: The one revert parole placed upon William M. Connolley was an unnecessary move, and is hereby revoked.]


 * Comment by parties:
 * This was not discussed in /Workshop, so I must comment here. What evidence supports this?  You're slipping in unsupported items and not waiting for all the evidence.  (SEWilco 03:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC))0
 * This revert parole was unwise. This is shown by the general lack of community support for it. Fred Bauder 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved here; non-Arbitrators are not meant to edit the page, as it very clearly says at the top thereon.

James F. (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)