Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence provided by Vsmith
JonGwynne has yet to respond to the request. However, he just added the following comment:


 * I notice you didn't answer the question William. Don't you have anything better to do that act like a jerk and then complain about people who call you on it?--JonGwynne 17:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

to the Requests for comment/JonGwynne page -Vsmith 18:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If you'll notice, I was responding to a comment made by another person. Vsmith is quoting me out of context.--JonGwynne 02:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 09:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)) The evidence is in context; this is yet another pointless insult from JG.

I present the discusion at Talk:Medieval Warm Period, in particular the sections: WMC playing partisan games again and Time for civility.The post by William M. Connolley 15:20, 17 Feb 2005 called for an end to incivility to which I added a follow-up post. JonGwynne responded in a typically rude and uncivil manner. His response to my discussion of what civil discourse consists of, indicates a lack of comprehension on his part or a simple unwillingness to abide by the rules. In particular he found my comment Civility also includes fair, honest and descriptive edit summaries. to be puzzeling - suggesting to me that the concepts of fairness, honesty, and trust are not important to him and deceptive edit summaries are somehow OK. Vsmith 14:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by William M. Connolley
Sorry, the wikicrash has delayed all this. Evidence a bit later: in the meantime I've commented on JG's response: Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Response to JG.

In addition to the evidence presented in the original complaint:

Gratuitous incivility

 * The real irony here is that such a hardcore IPCC propagandist like you who receives their proclamations as though they were delivered by a burning bush would be censoring their data. Despite your feeble excuses for censorship and vandalism....
 * Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley

Failure to abide by community norms

 * JG has had 4 recent 3RR bans:    (at the latter Geni said: the fourth is questionable (or would be for anyone else (JonGwynne is clearly gameing the system)); and in my opinion should have had a fifth.
 * On various articles, but most obviously carbon dioxide (hist) and greenhouse gas, JG has pushed his POV despite an "editing consensus" against him. Discussion does no good.
 * Deceptive edit summaries. JG uses these frequently: see for examples.

POV pushing
JG is clearly a "global warming skeptic". In and of itself, there is nothing much wrong with that: several other editors here who I respect and cooperate with (most obviously User:Silverback) would probably accept the label of skeptic. However, JG consistently edits towards minimising anything that looks like it might make CO2 (or any other man-made gas) important and maximises the effects of natural GHG's (water vapour).


 * On carbon dioxide (which ended up being protected because of him) he puts forward edits like, , . In these edits, he is trying to get his figure of "0.01%" into the article, whilst at other times he tries to remove the about 40% figure. The 40% figure is the percentage increase in CO2 in the atmosphere: its relevant and useful (so say all contributors except JG). The 0.01% figure is the increase in CO2 expressed as a percentage of atmospheric mass. Its irrelevant and useless (ditto). Moreover, its not used in the outside world and therefore amounts to original research. I've pointed this out  but JG has conspicously failed to answer. On global warming he has removed perfectly valid and relevant statements, purely because to him they look like POV ,  because they suggest that CO2 is important.
 * greenhouse gas: JG has constantly reverted versions which show the increase of various GHG's as a percentage (,, etc etc) leading to the page being protected, briefly. In these edits he has also, in general, preferred a version with even the most minor gases listed: this is a more minor matter, but it looks to me like he was trying to bury the important information in detail. Finally he deleted the entire table , which no-one agreed with.
 * The role of water vapo(u)r. Preamble: Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and in terms of total contribution it is numerically the largest. However, it is not *dominant* because it acts as a feedback, rather than a driver (see my blog if you care to). Substance: JG has consistently edited to try to maximise the role of WV, in order to minimise the effects of CO2. On GHG, he has removed a perfectly valid quote from an IPCC lead author ; on global warming he has consistently tried to introduce the text Though the majority of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor which is non-anthropogenic., , etc etc. Note that the text he is introducing is true, but misleading - a concept that JG has had trouble understanding . In considering the forcing of global warming WV is passive.


 * I fully endorse this section. It is an exact summary of my observations and thoughts about User:JonGwynne.--Stephan Schulz 22:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RFC's
Some mention needs to be made of the RFC's Requests for comment/JonGwynne and Requests for comment/William M. Connolley. I don't think that these get formally voted on, but I "won" them both numerically: 4.5 to 2 on JG; and 11.5 to 7.5 on WMC (I'm counting partials as halves). However, they made no difference to his editing behaviour (I assert that I have softened mine somewhat). I'd also like to draw the attention of the arbitrators to the strong statements in my support on the RFC: and the "outside view"s.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.