Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2

message: SEWilco's bot is currently (16 Dec) converting references to his footnotes style without discussion. This is occurring on Sea level rise . I have posted evidence of this . He seems to be acting in contempt of the current procedings as he is well aware that editors on climate related articles are opposed to his footnote style. Vsmith 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEWilco bot currently working on climate article 

message: What is it that SEWilco is being censured for here? The bot-assisted edits look entirely correct to me; I've made many similar edits, not always even quite as cleanly. He seems to be modifying articles to a much superior citation style. The changes are completely in accord with Wikipedia:Citing sources and with the practices that have recently been favored for newly featured articles. What on earth was objectionable? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm very confused 

message: He 's being censored because he had the nerve to report the parole violations of WMC. A parole imposed on WMC by the arbcom. Which they didn't want to enforce. This arbcom is biased beyond belief. But what do you expect when they themself state; And yes, the doctrine of natural justice and procedural due process are not being followed here. Welcome to reality. 
--MichaelSirks 09:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SEWilco managed to demonstrate to the arbcom that WMC's parole was a bad idea.  He demonstrated this by using it, in bad faith, to gain advantage in an editing dispute.  He was informed, multiple times, that the manner in which he was reporting parole was disruptive.  He was given many chances to modify the manner in which he reported those parole violations.  He chose to continue making those reports in a disruptive manner.  So, yes:  engaging in "good" activities can get you in trouble, when you do them in a disruptive manner.  This outcome seems to me to be entirely correct.  If SEWilco wanted to avoid censure, then all he had to do was take one of the many opportunities offered to him to not act disruptively.  He chose to ignore those opportunities.  He is now facing the consequences of his choices.  Nandesuka 14:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But still believes he did absolutely nothing wrong. Fred Bauder 14:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  What evidence was presented that I was "using it, in bad faith, to gain advantage in an editing dispute"?  Was there a Finding of Fact to that effect supported by evidence?  When I modified my manner of reporting Wikipedia:Parole violations I was blocked before I could report most violations.  And WMC did not get in trouble for dozens of obvious violations.  I am facing the consequences of WMC's large number of violations and the ArbComm's arbitrary actions.  (SEWilco 15:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not an Arbcom member, and I wasn't a party to this action, so I really can't answer your questions, except to say that, as an admin uninvolved with the underlying dispute (I don't particularly favor one or the other citation format), I explained to you that your actions were disruptive to the proper functioning of WP:AN/3RR.  Other admins told you that they found your actions disruptive as well.  You chose to continue being disruptive.  It seems clear to me that this case would not have been reopened had you not acted in this manner.  The case being reopened is the proximate cause of the current restrictions placed on you.  If you're looking for something to blame, therefore, I suggest you examine the interface between your chair and your computer's keyboard. Nandesuka 16:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see how reporting a parole violation can be disruptive. Can 600 adminstrators not handle 20 reports of parole violations in 20 days??? Please explain? If I try to enforce a ruling of the arbcom and act in accordance with the rules of wikipedia but one of the 600 administrators tells me to stop, should I stop. Please explain? If there is a party to blame it is the arbcom for given a parole to WMC which they don't want to be enforced. Or WMC for breaking his parole. --MichaelSirks 00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The final dicision is a disgrace