Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop

Equality of cancellation
As WMC's parole has not been enforced, if his parole is cancelled then there has been no Remedy applied to him. That would amount to a cancellation of the previous arbitration case. To be fair to the other participants, their lost Wikipedia time should be restored to them. Any suggestions? For rhetorical purposes I'll point out that because articles and edits are the entities of Wikipedia time, all of the articles which Cortonin and JonGwynne edited since perhaps a fortnight before the arbitration case could be reverted to Cortonin or JonGwynne's last edit, the articles protected, and those two users assigned as gatekeepers (sole editors) of those articles for six months. (SEWilco 06:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC))


 * You commit various fallacies here. First, just because the parole has not been enforced does not mean that it was not in force. It apparently was not considered to be necessary to enforce it (often), because there were no major infractions. And in fact, William has been banned twice thanks to your efforts. Secondly, even a complete cancelation of the parole on the day after it was imposed would not amount to a cancellation of the case. Each participants actions have to be individually considered. Your suggestion is obvious nonsense - it amounts to levelling LA with an H-bomb because someone was executed in error. You may not have noticed it, but there are people beyond the ones in this case contributing to Wikipedia and the Climate Change articles. Finally, the aim of Wikipedia is not to allow people to push their view into it - it is to build a good encyclopedia. How could a (hypothetical) reversion possibly further that aim? There is a reason why we do not sign articles - what is important is the quality of the article, not the author. --Stephan Schulz 18:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you know there were not major infractions? And where is it defined what violations are not to be enforced?  How many gems are not in the articles due to WMC's violations?  The parole was put in place (although those who put it in place are not explaining it), and WMC has been found to be violating it in obvious ways.  The other two participants apparently obeyed the ruling and their contributions during this period have been lost.  And I clearly labeled my technically possible but rather excessive suggestion as being rhetorical; do you have suggestions for giving back Wikitime?  (SEWilco 21:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC))


 * I know because I looked at them when you reported them. They are petty stuff, often clear, often justified in the edit summary. I think this is sufficient and so seem to think most other Wikipedians who have looked into the case. You are still trying to put the letter over the spirit. You ignore consensus in this and other cases, and you seem to prefer drowning things by sheer mass of detail and spurious questions over a constructive dialogue. Your choice, but I have neither time nor interest to play games. --Stephan Schulz 23:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Relevant discussion regarding SEWilco's bot
See for a current discussion involving use/misuse of SEWilco's footnote bot. His bot has been blocked for violating WP:CITE and WP:V. His responses there show that he has a lack of understanding of the validity of inline links and the effect his bot has on them. Vsmith 16:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

See also: for further info. Vsmith 16:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Experimental citatin system Dnote
In the spirit of actually trying to resolve this dispute, I have a new proposal. I have created a new citation system, dnote which could allow us to move on from discussions about whether citations are needed.

Advantages / design goals


 * provides direct URL links (with text or even numbered)
 * maintainable since there is no separation between URL and citation
 * relatively simple
 * allows storage of full citation information

It works like this:

Looks like

I've made it as an experiment right now. Do any of the participants have any comments to this? Mozzerati 22:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Details don't show up in the browser version nor the printable version. Makes it difficult to use citation information from the article view or a printed copy.  (SEWilco 04:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))