1) Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

Support:

1. Imported from precedents. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:08, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
2. mav 18:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Ambi 14:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 14:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
5. Fred Bauder 20:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
6. ➥the Epopt 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutrality^talk 17:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
8. sannse (talk) 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion. However, this does not imply that all competing points of view deserve equal consideration in an article.

Support:

1. Imported from precedents. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:08, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
2. mav 18:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Ambi 14:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 15:20, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
5. Fred Bauder 20:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
6. ➥the Epopt 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutrality^talk 17:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
8. sannse (talk) 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Support:

1. Imported from precedents. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:12, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
2. mav 18:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Ambi 14:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 14:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
5. Fred Bauder 20:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
6. ➥the Epopt 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutrality^talk 17:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
8. sannse (talk) 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) 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 Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability

Support:

1. mav 17:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Grunt 🇪🇺 20:43, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
3. Ambi 14:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 14:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
5. Fred Bauder 20:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
6. ➥the Epopt 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutrality^talk 17:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
8. sannse (talk) 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) No individual or selected group of people is entitled the right to control the content of an article. (See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.)

Support:

1. mav 17:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Grunt 🇪🇺 20:43, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
3. Ambi 14:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 14:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
5. Fred Bauder 20:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
6. ➥the Epopt 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutrality^talk 17:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
8. sannse (talk) 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) The goal of this project is to build an neutral, comprehensive, and accurate encyclopedia. The authority of all policies and guidelines springs from a desire to regulate the behavior of the community in a way that will hopefully help us attain our goal. Therefore this fact must be kept in mind when those polices and guidelines are applied. The desire to apply rules for the sake of rules must be suppressed.

Support:

1. To other arbs; edit as you see fit. --mav 03:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Hear, hear! -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:44, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutrality^talk 17:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
5. sannse (talk) 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Fred's objection makes no sense. Ambi 06:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. I concur with Ambi. →Raul654 22:59, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 21:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) NPOV is not a negotiable policy.

   What? The goal of NPOV is also to help us build an accurate encyclopedia. Please explain how it is not. --mav 21:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   In areas such as global warming where there is significant division of opinion NPOV contemplates presentation of both points of view (without derogatory characterization of one point of view). Fred Bauder 21:55, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

   ...even when doing so compromises the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:01, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Those views can and should be included in such a way so that all significant viewpoints are included in an appropriate manor and without making the distinction between who is saying what unclear. I don't see the problem. --mav 22:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

7) Since the goal of Wikipedia is to provide accurate content, we cannot regard all references as equally valid and give them all equal weight. Editors should exercise care in the selection and use of references. The closer a reference is to current peer reviewed work, the better. Balance must also be attained by properly labeling and attributing significant dissenting views (where they exist).

Support:

1. To other arbs; edit as you see fit. --mav 03:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 20:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
3. A blog, an Associated Press article, and The Onion, for instance, all have different weights in providing accurate content. To say that they don't is ridiculous. Neutrality^talk 17:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
4. sannse (talk) 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) If it would solve the Epopt's concerns, I would agree to the removal of the sentence on peer review - leaving the validity to the assessment of the community. The general point seems valid to me though
5. David Gerard 00:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC) I'm also happy with removing the sentence on peer review. Wikipedia:Cite sources gives pointers on how to avoid crappy references. But the essential point is that 100 crap references don't outdraw one good one, or illustrate that a given POV supported by 100 crap references is to be treated with the same seriousness as another supported by one good one.[reply]
6. It could perhaps be worded better, but we get the general idea. Ambi 06:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. I don't see the problem that Epopt does with acknowledging editorial preference for peer reviewed works. →Raul654 23:01, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Just as one person's anatomical illustration is another person's pornography, variations of opinion on the relative values of sources can be tolerated; we should not give official blessing to particular publications or types of publications ➥the Epopt 23:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. ...I'm not sure this is the best way to word this policy, but I also cannot think of a better way to word it. I'm going to withhold my support until a better wording presents itself. -- Gruntt 🇪🇺 03:44, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

8) In order to adequately edit a Wikipedia article a user must be able to understand and adequately interpret references which relate to the subject. A user who persistently and aggressively edits articles in areas which they are unable to understand may be banned from those areas.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. Understanding is often one of the keys to working constructively with others in articles of contention. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:18, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
3. mav 01:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutrality^talk 06:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Who determines whether the editor is "able to understand" the references? The attacker who holds him in contempt? ➥the Epopt 15:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There can be close questions and obvious situations. This matter is one of the more difficult matters as Cortonin seems to make sense. Fred Bauder

Abstain:

1. I do have some concerns about this as a precedent (particularly in regard to disputed topics like those surrounding Armenia, where many good references may not be in English). I also think it's a very good idea in most cases, though. Ambi 23:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with Ambi -good idea in most cases, but not necessarily all. →Raul654 23:03, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
3. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

9) Wikipedia editors are required to maintain a minimum level of courtesy toward one another, see Wikiquette, Civility and Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement.

Support:

1. from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents mav 23:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Grunt 🇪🇺 23:35, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. →Raul654 23:41, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
4. Ambi 00:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Fred Bauder 13:54, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
6. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) There is strong scientific evidence that increased emissions of greenhouse gas have resulted in global warming and that projections of resulting climate change are valid.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. There's no need to write up a bunch of principles concerning the ideological background of the argument, particularly when the issue at hand is so patently obvious (whether you agree with it or not). Let's just concentrate on the people and the conduct involved Ambi 14:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. As Ambi. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:20, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
3. We do not have the power to decree whether scientific evidence is "strong" or not. ➥the Epopt 15:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Outside our mandate. Neutrality^talk 06:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
5. →Raul654 23:03, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2) A worldwide political dispute has emerged regarding what appropriate actions such as those proposed in the Kyoto Treaty should be taken by the international community in response to the phenomenon of global warming.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. There's no need to write up a bunch of principles concerning the ideological background of the argument, particularly when the issue at hand is so patently obvious (whether you agree with it or not). Let's just concentrate on the people and the conduct involved Ambi 14:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. As Ambi. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:20, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 15:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Outside our mandate. Neutrality^talk 06:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3) This political dispute has been expressed in Wikipedia by struggle over such articles as Global warming, climate change, greenhouse gas. It has also bled over into article such as scientific method and consensus science. Participants in this struggle include the principals in this matter, User:William M. Connolley and User:Cortonin and number of others, see, for example, this edit by User:ChrisSteinbach followed by this deceptive comment on the talk page and the creation of Consensus science by User:JonGwynne.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Isn't this just a slightly more detailed version of 4, which has already passed? Ambi 14:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. As Ambi. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:20, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 15:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Ambi. Neutrality^talk 06:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
5. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4) Global warming, climate change, greenhouse gas and related articles have been the subject of many edit and talk page disputes. William M. Connolley and Cortonin have often been involved in these disputes (see the history of each page).

Support:

1. mav 18:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Grunt 🇪🇺 20:42, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
3. Ambi 14:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 14:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
5. Fred Bauder 20:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
6. ➥the Epopt 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutrality^talk 17:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
8. sannse (talk) 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

5) William M. Connolley often reverts edits which he considers poorly referenced or which in his opinion use a heavily-biased or otherwise inadequate reference (such as citing what a popular writer said about a global warming-related topic instead of a panel of scientists in the relevant field). [11] [12] [13]

Support:

1. mav 18:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Grunt 🇪🇺 20:42, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
3. Concur with sannse. Ambi 14:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 14:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
5. Fred Bauder 20:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) (I have copyedited the finding)
6. ➥the Epopt 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Neutrality^talk 17:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
8. sannse (talk) 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) this vote does not imply that removal of such edits is necessarily wrong

Oppose:

Abstain:

6) William M. Connolley is widely viewed in Wikipedia as being highly knowledgeable in the field he is writing about. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Support:

1. mav 18:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Grunt 🇪🇺 20:42, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
3. Ambi 14:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 14:39, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
5. ➥the Epopt 23:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutrality^talk 17:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
7. sannse (talk) 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 20:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) The issue is whether NPOV is to be overriden, not certification of an expert to be given authority to override it.

   How is that a valid objection to the FoF as presented? You disagree that WMC is widely viewed the way this FoF says he is? That does not seem to be the case from your comment, so I'm baffled as to why you are voting against this. --mav

   To me, Fred is indicating that this FoF could be leading to us making a suggestion that WMC is above NPOV policies (which of course he is not). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:01, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Abstain:

7) William M. Connolley has expressed his opposition to Wikipedia's NPOV policy as it applies to scientific articles, [19]. He states, "In science, neutrality is presenting the truth, or what the vast majority of scientific opinion (as measured by published papers) believes to be the truth. Opposing views should be presented, but with lower prominence." [20].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 21:07, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have read the RfC page again, especially the reference to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Pseudoscience, "There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience." I continue to believe there is a problem with William M. Connolley's interpretation of NPOV. Especially as he refers to "truth." Fred Bauder 04:45, May 21, 2005 (UTC) While it is true that with respect to controversial issues such as global warming or climate change there is a consensus regarding certain matters and while it is true that describing that consensus as such and prominently featuring it in the articles is proper, describing it as the "truth" is not. Fred Bauder 06:27, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't follow how that wording is an opposition to our NPOV policy. The statement reads to me as though the majority view should be presented as such and minority views are also presented as such. To me, this is in line with NPOV principles. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:03, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
2. I fully agree with Grunt. →Raul654 22:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
3. I agree with Grunt; the belief that facts are always NPOV is expressly not in opposition to the neutral point-of-view policy. The view that the Earth is flat should not be presented as scientifically valid in the Earth article, for instance. Determing what is "a fact" is the difficult part. Neutrality^talk 17:04, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
4. sannse (talk) 22:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) as Grunt
5. ➥the Epopt 13:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. As Grunt. Sometimes one has to question whether an Arbitrator should really be hearing a particular case, or whether they should be recused. Ambi 06:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

8) Descriptions of the greenhouse effect, especially those intended for the general public or for children, often use metaphor. In addition to the basic greenhouse metaphor, the atmosphere may be described as a "blanket", or it may be stated that infrared radiation is "trapped" or "reflected" or "re-emited" by the atmosphere, see the top-ranked google hit for for "global warming". Taken literally, these metaphors can be misleading as the underlying physical mechanisms differ from those involved in the greenhouse effect, see Bad Greenhouse.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 11:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
2. Ambi 13:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm not entirely sure we need this, as 9) covers this in-depth enough for our needs, but I'll go with it -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:30, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
4. mav 01:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 06:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
6. →Raul654 23:05, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
7. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. so what? ➥the Epopt 21:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

9) Cortonin has persistently and aggressively advanced views which confuse metaphorical explanations of the greenhouse effect and greenhouses with the technical scientific phenomena underlying them. Despite determined efforts by other editors to inform him and point him to information on the subject he seems to have difficulty understanding both the use of metaphor and the scientific literature in the field, see Talk:Greenhouse effect. This is a persistent condition which seems likely to continue.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 11:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
2. Ambi 13:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Grunt 🇪🇺 21:30, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
4. mav 01:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutrality^talk 06:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
6. →Raul654 23:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
7. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) some diffs would be useful here (as Cortonin has said on the talk page)
8. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

10) The revert and personal attack parole placed on JonGwynne in his previous case (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne#Remedies) has slowed his revert behavior but uncivil comments on talk pages continue. Thus the previous order has not had the desired effect of encouraging him to seek consensus and be civil. He has been temp banned twice for violating this order [21]. Recent uncivil and/or combative talk page comments include: The feeble attempt to rationalize the flaws of KP by citing wishful thinking on the part of politicians and activists is also POV and, therefore, inappropriate for wikipedia. You want to write an editorial for some blog then feel free. But do please spare wikipedia your cant., Who gives a damn how "people regard him"?, Since I have completely demolished your claims regarding the quote, I'll replace it, n any case, I notice you have been unable to justify your reversions. I can only assume that this is because you can't., I have no POV, I am simply advocating an accurate and objective view. Perhaps you should consider a similar approach.. Other users were also uncivil at times, but were most often provoked in some way by JonGwynne (such as responding to an uncivil and/or combative comment by JonGwynne; see Talk:Ross McKitrick for some examples).

Support:

1. mav 23:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Grunt 🇪🇺 00:26, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
3. Ambi 09:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Fred Bauder 13:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
5. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. →Raul654 00:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

1) Due to a demonstrated propensity to revert and engage in other inappropriate editing behaviors that run counter to Wikipedia policy, Cortonin is hereby prohibited for six months from editing or modifying any article relating to climate change. This includes but is not limited to all pages in Category:Climate change and also covers page moves and the creation of new articles related to this subject, but does not include talk pages. Should he violate this prohibition, any administrator not directly involved in the dispute may block him for up to three days for the initial modification and up to a week for continued violations. Determining what constitutes a climate change-related page is left up to the discretion of the blocking administrator. Cortonin may apply to the Arbitration Committee in three months for the removal of this prohibition.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 15:07, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
2. David Gerard 00:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC) Note that a page will become "related" for purposes of this ban if he puts in material relating to it.[reply]
3. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:03, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
4. Ambi 06:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. mav 20:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Fred Bauder 11:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC) Based on the principle requiring competence and the finding of fact showing a lack of competence.
7. →Raul654 23:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
8. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9. ➥the Epopt 00:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 05:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC) Cortonin has made exactly one edit to the article scientific method [22] and he is to be banned from editing the article?

After giving 24 hours notice on the ml with no objections, I have removed everything but the ban on climate change related articles. --mav 23:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

2.1) Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted). Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references). This includes but is not limited to all pages in Category:Climate change. Should he violate this prohibition, any administrator not directly involved in the dispute may block him for up to three days for the initial revert and up to a week for continued violations. Determining what constitutes a climate change-related page and determining what is a 'reputable source' is left up to the discretion of the blocking administrator (who should follow the guidance at #Relative value of references). William M. Connolley may apply to the Arbitration Committee in three months for the removal of this prohibition.

Support:

1. Engaging in revert wars can not be condoned. --mav 21:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Fred Bauder 22:22, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
3. Aye. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:34, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
4. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) on the basis of the revert finding - his expetise does not excuse his edit waring
5. ➥the Epopt 00:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. →Raul654 - too harsh 23:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
2. Very strongly oppose. This is too harsh, considering the previous findings. Ambi 09:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

2.2) William M. Connolley is strongly cautioned to avoid sterile edit wars, and reverting without explanation. In the future, he is to use the talk page to discuss disagreements rather than reverting-ad-infinitum.

Support:

1. →Raul654 00:01, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
2. Ambi 09:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Third choice. --mav 14:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) only if other remedies don't pass
5. ➥the Epopt 00:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder 13:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Too lenient. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:10, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Abstain:

2.3) Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted). Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references). This includes but is not limited to all pages in Category:Climate change. Violations of this order should be treated as WP:3RR violations and administrators not directly involved in the dispute should act accordingly. Determining what constitutes a climate change-related page and determining what is a 'reputable source' is left up to the discretion of the blocking administrator (who should follow the guidance at #Relative value of references). William M. Connolley may apply to the Arbitration Committee in one month for the removal of this prohibition.

Support:

1. more lenient version. First choice. --mav 00:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Second choice - the three month parole version sounds better. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:25, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
3. sannse (talk) 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) first choice
4. ➥the Epopt 00:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Fred Bauder 13:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Very strongly oppose. Far too harsh considering the previous findings. Ambi 09:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. I concur with Ambi →Raul654 15:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

3) In view of the failure of previous arbitration remedies, and continued incivility and edit warring, JonGwynne is banned from Wikipedia for three months.

Support:

1. sannse (talk) 18:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Ambi 21:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. mav 03:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. ➥the Epopt 20:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. →Raul654 21:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder 21:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I'd like to see some links to edits or findings of fact which would support this remedy Fred Bauder 20:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

   see FoF 10 -- sannse (talk) 18:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4) Should he return after successful completion of the three month ban (should this pass), JonGwynne is prohibited for six months from editing or modifying any article relating to climate change. This includes but is not limited to all pages in Category:Climate change and also covers page moves and the creation of new articles related to this subject, but does not include talk pages. Should he violate this prohibition, any administrator not directly involved in the dispute may block him for up to three days for the initial modification and up to a week for continued violations. Determining what constitutes a climate change-related page is left up to the discretion of the blocking administrator. JonGwynne may apply to the Arbitration Committee in three months for the removal of this prohibition.

Support:

1. sannse (talk) 18:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. →Raul654 18:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
3. Ambi 21:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. mav 03:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. ➥the Epopt 20:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. Fred Bauder 21:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I'd like to see some links to edits or findings of fact which would support this remedy Fred Bauder 20:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

   see FoF 10 -- sannse (talk) 18:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

To be at all effective in reducing edit conflict in the climate change related articles I think we need to include the other edit warriors, namely SEWilco, Vsmith, Marco Krohn, JonGwynne (already under sanction), and possibly others, in this case. We may also want to explore the threat of a RfAr for anyone who consistently violates orders that could pertain to this set of articles (such as citing sources and using good sources when challenged). --mav 01:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To do this we would ask both parties to request arbitration against other people involved in the climate change and related articles dispute. Then we'd accept or reject each and combine those requests into this case. --mav 04:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

I move to close, as we have all the votes we need. Neutrality^talk 22:02, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

1. Neutrality^talk 22:02, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose at this time. We still need a finding or two to back up the remedy and we have not sufficiently considered any possible remedy against WMC (or at least justification why he should not be sanctioned). --mav 00:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Fred Bauder 00:34, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
3. We may indeed have enough votes to pass all currently proposed decisions, but we don't have enough of a decision to pass yet; therefore oppose. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:34, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

1. Since 5 votes are a majority, it would appear that all the remedies likely to pass have passed. →Raul654 00:59, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
2. Agree. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:14, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Oppose - There still is no remedy for JonGwynne. --mav 02:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose as mav - suggested remedies added -- sannse (talk) 18:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. As before, I think this one is over. →Raul654 21:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
2. Agree. sannse (talk) 21:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) (vote valid 21:49, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC) as usual)
3. Agree Fred Bauder 21:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
4. Looks done to me. --mav 04:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Done ➥the Epopt 04:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. For good measure. Ambi 05:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)