Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne

(William M. Connolley 22:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)) This page is now superceeded by Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne, which itself has concluded.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (JonGwynne | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
JonGwynne has been repeatedly and gratuitously impolite; when challenged he has responded with levity. He has also pushed his POV in a number of articles to the detriment of wiki.

Description
JonGwynne has pushed his POV, with incivility, on a number of articles related to climate change: global warming, greenhouse gas, global cooling, scientific consensus, consensus science, Michael Crichton to name enough.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * (global warming: gratuitous incivility: p.s. WMC, would you be terribly offended if I refer to you as "revert boy" from now on?)
 * (RFC: repeat of previous incivility)
 * (global warming: POV pushing)
 * (global warming: removing relevant facts that don't fit his POV)
 * (t:global warming: asking for unreasonable standards of evidence; incivility)
 * consensus science
 * (global cooling: hiding substantive changes under deceptive edit summary)

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * neutral point of view
 * Civility
 * Wikiquette
 * Writers rules of engagement
 * No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Talk:Global warming
 * Talk:Michael Crichton
 * Requests for comment/William M. Connolley
 * [sniping at Uncle Ed]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * William M. Connolley 22:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Vsmith 02:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * --user:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed (talk) 18:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * FULL endorsement I have switched to full endorsement, see talk page. I am making the change this way since I don't know how to cross out. --Silverback 11:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) PARTIAL endorsement JonGwynne seems unfamiliar with scientific give and take, and scientific literature, and resorts to ad hominem attacks rather than evidence. He seems more likely to try to win revert wars than discussions.  I give only a partial endorsement because while JonGwynne's conduct has been frustratingly petty, I doubt it has yet risen (sunk?) to the level requiring an RfC. --Silverback 11:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Partial endorsment Jon Gwynne seems to be increasingly trollish. While initially it appeared Gwynne's responses were due to WMC's impoliteness, now it seems that Gwynne is indeed acting like a troll (the "water vapour/vapor" spelling war). However, I will not fully endorse as I do not agree with the statement of dispute. Usage and Spelling: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another."&mdash;Ben 07:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Response User:JonGwynne
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Well, I guess this is the place where I respond to this nonsense.

First, with regard to the Statement of the Dispute: I deny that I have been "repeatedly and gratuitously impolite". I have responded directly, fairly and factually to the objectionable behavior of the complaintant.

Evidence of disputed behavior


 * 1. I asked him a simple and straightforward question:  would WMC be offended if I referred to him as "revert boy"?  I asked him this because of his persistent tendency to petulantly revert articles with no consideration for the work of others.  Many people on wikipedia use nicknames and pseudonyms.  I thought this would be appropriate for WMC but didn't want to use it if he would be offended by it.  So, I asked him.  He didn't answer and I took that as tacit consent.  Anyone who cares to reat the statement in question will see that I offered a pre-emptive apology within the original statement in case he was offended.

This is a non-issue.


 * 2. I'm sorry that WMC objects to my characterization of his accusations against me as unsubstantiated but in the absense of, well, any substantiation of these charges...  I think that's fair, accurate and appropriate comment.


 * 3. It is WMC who is pushing the POV here.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't think he is, but that doesn't change things.  He insists on stating certain things as absolute facts when they have yet to be established as such.  There is, whether he wants to discuss/admit it or not, considerable and legitimate disagreement with regard to certain claims he wants to offer as uncontested.


 * 4. Sorry, but I'm going to have to ask for clarification of this one.  I can't see the "relevant facts" I'm accused of removing.  However, considering WMC's record of removing relevant content from the article in question, I have to say that even if he is correct, it is at best a case of the pot lecturing the kettle for its blackness.


 * 5. Excuse me, "unreasonable standards of evidence"?  WMC wants to talk about what ALL climate models show, but he isn't willing to demonstrate how he knows what all climate models show.  My position is that if he wants to make an absolute claim like that, he'd best be prepared to at least try to back it up.  So far, he hasn't even tried.  He simply wants us to accept his claim on faith.  Sorry, but that isn't good enough.


 * 6. I think he's just bitter and angry because he tried to get this article deleted and the votes are going against him.  He hasn't made a single contribution to this article and the only entry in the discussion page is his rather snide announcement of his VFD.  In any case,


 * 7. This complains is invalid on its face.  There is no way to "hide" the nature of the change to an article.  The "compare" feature in wikipedia's "history" page makes that impossible.

Applicable policies


 * 1. WMC has failed to demonstrate any example of a NPOV violation on my part.


 * 2. I'll stipulate that he has shown examples of what could be construed by him as incivility on my part.  However, I don't believe I was any less civil than WMC at any given time.  I will also stipulatate that the "but he was doing it too!" may not be the strongest defense, but it certain renders his complaint not only moot but hypocritical as well.


 * 3. WMC has failed to demonstrate any example of a Wikipedia:Wikiquette violation on my part


 * 4. WMC has failed to demonstrate any example of a Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement  violation on my part


 * 5. Ah, I figured this would come up.  WMC loves to accuse others of engaging in personal attacks but is considerably less forthcoming when explaining what he means by "personal attack".  As near as I can tell, he wants to engage in objectionable conduct but when called on it by others, he complains about them making personal attacks.  Here's a hint:  being called objectionable isn't a personal attack.

Final Thoughts: It is my personal opinion that WMCs complaint is motivately solely by pettiness. He has gone out of his way to be difficult, irritating and confrontational. I cite as my examples


 * 1. His persistent and peevish reversions of other people's work - including but certainly not limited to my own.  Talk:Global warming Talk:Michael Crichton


 * 2. His demonstrated annoyance at my comments in his own complaint page - Requests for comment/William M. Connolley


 * 3. His attempt to have a legitmate article (at least so say the majority) deleted.  consensus science

To summarize, I believe I have stated clearly why WMC has failed to make a prima facie case for any of his complaints. I ask that this matter be summarily dismissed.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

The only times I have ever seen JonGwynne get impolite is out of anger when provoked by equally impolite comments from WMC, or when reacting to his contributions being repeatedly erased. This RFC seems to be motivated primarilly to detract attention from Requests for comment/William M. Connolley. I'm sorry for the Wikipedia community that it must waste its time with such things as this. Aren't we supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here?

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1)   &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 06:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Ben 21:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I know I'm not supposed to endorse anything here and I'm not voting on the summary but rather thanking whoever wrote it for taking WMC to task for his petty wasting of everyone's time with stuff like this.--JonGwynne 22:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have been reading wikipedia for a while now and I just found outabout these RFC pages. This one is even dumber than the last one I saw. Even though it is easier to read.

Heres what i think. You all need to stop being annoying.

John. Stop teasing Bill. Just because it is easy to do does not mean you should. Or mean anyone cares. You dont have to try to be right all the time because your not.

Bill. Stop being a whiny crybaby. Nobody want to hear you complain every time you think someone is being mean to you. Be a man.

vsmith. Stop being a brownnoser.

The rest of you. Stop it!


 * Can we moderate posts as "funny" on Wikipedia? :)     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 14:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "moderate posts as 'funny'"? That's pretty rough talk (Julia's, I mean, not yours).  Actually, I'm surprised William didn't try to delete it  and I'm even more surprised that he complimented her on her post.  ;-)  What do you want to bet that he starts a RFC on her as well?  --JonGwynne 00:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * See on .     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 05:14, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)) The unsigned but was by JuliaW, whose only other contribution to wiki was equally incisive comments on Requests for comment/62.52.37.xxx.


 * Youre a jerk Bill. What you said wasnt a compliment, that was just you trying to act superior.  You arent as superior as you think.  Don't you have anything better to do than complain about people you think are picking on you?  By the way, theyure not.  Why not try writing wiki entries instead of crybaby nonsense?  --JuliaW 19:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Why don't you take your own advice: ?


 * 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)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Yes, you're right. As a registered user, I'm brand new. That's why I said in my comment; "on other chat boards". I'm just another combatant who appreciates Jon's argumentation style. He doesn't change it between the various forums. You can call it a comment from an external expert...Clas Gorman

More (deceptive edit summaries)
(William M. Connolley 09:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Since I first filed this, JG has continued to use deliberately deceptive edit summaries, most recently on the Greenhouse gas page:.


 * Even if they were deceptive (which you have so far failed to demonstrate - like the rest of your accusations, this one is empty, petulant bluster) what would the point be? Anyone who wants to see the nature of the change can easily do so thanks to the compare tool.  In the end, what the edit summary says is not really important.  Honestly, don't you have better things to do than carp about the behavior of others?--JonGwynne 20:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What the edit summary says is important and if it is deceptive and designed to cover up the true nature of the edit it is dishonest. Anytime someone tries to deceive a casual user with such a falsehood it is extremely important and says watch out - this user is not trustworthy. And trust should be the most important characteristic of members of a joint project such as this. The fact that JG belittles this is quite significant to the current proceedings. Vsmith 21:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * First, it is impossible to deceive anyone with the edit summary or "cover up the true nature of the edit" since, as I pointed out before, it is simple to clearly see the nature of the edit by using the compare tool. Second, allegations that a given edit summary is a "falsehood" are, as a practical matter, going to be equally impossible to prove since it would require the complaintant to be able to read the mind of the person they are accusing of deception.  Third, I have belittled nothing except the insipid time-wasting of certain people here who shall remain nameless in hopes of preventing another avalanche of banal complaints.  --JonGwynne 21:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He is still at it. Now he is blatantly accusing me of censorship in an edit summary of a revert without bothering to read the discussion page. See Consensus science edit summary of 02:39, 5 Feb 2005. I consider this an insult. -Vsmith 04:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Consider it what you like. BTW, your statements that I am not "bothering to read the discussion page" is false.  I have, in fact, read the page.  You may retract the inaccurate claim at your leisure.  My claim of censorship is based on your repeated and inappropriate attempts to remove important and relevant information from the article in question for what appear to be entirely personal reasons.   That can fairly be referred to as "censorship".  If you don't like the label, stop engaging in the conduct.--JonGwynne 15:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And it goes on. Now JonGwynne charges those that disagree with his edits with vandalism in edit summaries and on the talk page of Consensus science. False charges of vandalism are a serious matter and blatently insulting. -Vsmith 15:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That's why I don't make false charges. Unlike, for example, the person who created this entire section and who has yet abjectly failed to present any evidence that the claims made are valid.--JonGwynne 15:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 14:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) JG continues to make deceptive edit summaries, and makes reverts under disguise: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&curid=36795&action=history. Further, he has broken the 3RR rule on Carbon_dioxide and is unapologetic about it.

More (deliberately stirring up edit wars and generally causing trouble)

 * Ah, more specious complaints from WMC. How, (ahem), novel.--JonGwynne 12:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)) JonGwynne appears to have started a pointless spelling war on the Greenhouse gas page by insisting on switching to the spelling "vapor": see e.g.


 * If you'd taken the time to read the explanation, you'd have seen that there was a perfectly valid reason for the switch. Your persistent attempts to manufacture things to get upset about is gone way past tiresome.--JonGwynne 12:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)) After this attempt by Cortonin to call for civility (not that I totally agree with his comment, but he was asking for people to be civil), JonGwynne attempted to twist it into an insult and added his own:.


 * You're really grasping at straws here, aren't you? Not only are you completely wrong (as usual) but this doesn't even concern you.  And...  let me see if I've got this right, someone calls me stupid in an unusually verbose matter and when I comment on their verbosity and agree that things should be kept civil and that is an insult?  Since when is "circumlocutious" an insult?  Perhaps you should go find a dictionary since you're evidently unfamiliar with the word.--JonGwynne 12:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Gratuiitous insults in edit coments: ''Revert-boy strikes again and tries to re-write history... DENIED!''


 * You really only have yourself to blame for this William, I asked you if you minded if I referred to you as "revert boy" and you didn't say anything. I used the basic principle of "qui tacet consentire" and proceeded based on your silence.  It may be difficult for me to stop thinking of you as "revert boy" now, it is such a good way to refer to your annoying tendency to stifle progress in the wikipedia.  But, if it is really important to you, I'll consider stopping.  Though, honestly, it is more consideration than you deserve and far more than you've shown anyone else here.--JonGwynne 13:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 14:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) The above is a perfect example of incivility - you convict yourself out of your own mouth.

User JonGwynne is obviously prvoking conflict by initiating and continuing a spelling war completely ignoring the style guide and repeatedly changing his reasons. -Vsmith 14:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Answer this question:


 * In the article entitled water vapor, how is water vapor spelled? Is it?


 * A: water vapor
 * B: water vapour

Hint: The correct answer is underlined.

Now, for the extra credit question:


 * Should the spelling of water vapor in an article that discusses the role of water vapor use the same spelling as the original article about water vapor?


 * A: Yes, of course!  How perfectly obvious to anyone who spends an instant thinking about it.
 * B: No, it makes more sense for the articles to be inconsistent and confusing in spelling and also, as a bonus, makes editing them more difficule because it necessitates the creation of more complex links to the original article.

--JonGwynne 17:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of style - Usage and Spelling: "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another." &mdash;Ben 21:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought this matter had dropped, but since people are still commenting on it, it should be said that while perhaps he did not make the matter very clear, in the end JonGwynne was on the side of the style manual. Perhaps you can discuss the manner of conduct that all involved had during the above-mentioned edit war, but for the sake of precision, I don't believe it's quite correct to say that JonGwynne necessarily started it, or that JonGwynne was violating the manual of style.  See Talk:Greenhouse gas.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 21:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * JonGwynne was arguing to change the spelling to match _another_ page, this is wrong. Cortonin pointed out that the page was incorrectly standardized to British spelling, this has been corrected and the page is now American spelling. Duk 00:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is fair to say that I was wrong in this case. There is nothing in the spelling/style section which says that spelling of one page should not be standardized to the spelling of the page to which it refers.  In fact, the first rule of spelling emphasizes the importance of consistency (though, admittedly, in a different context).--JonGwynne 02:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Manual of Style states ...If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant... --Duk 03:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * But surely that refers to creating redirect pages so if, for example, someone types aeroplane into the search box, they are redirected to the aircraft page. What I'm talking about is something different.  If an article refers to water vapor and references the original article on the subject, one would think it should use the spelling of the original article.  Wouldn't you agree?--JonGwynne 15:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree, and neither does the MOS. The spelling of one page should not be a reason to change the spelling on another page. If this _were_ a valid argument we would have a never ending circle of spelling disputes, just by virtue of page links. Duk 17:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one, but that's OK. Thanks for taking the time to explain it clearly though.  You're much more reasonable, polite and helpful than some people here have been and they would do well to follow your example.  Thanks for your clarification below as well. --JonGwynne 19:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Since I'm posting here, let me be clear; I am not endorsing the title of this section. I don't believe that JonGwynne ...is deliberately stirring up edit wars. Duk 18:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More (making unmarked reverts with cosmetic changes to game the system)
(William M. Connolley 16:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) JG points to this exchange as a non-revert. A comparison of the versions clearly shows that this is a revert with a few cosmetic changes to try to pretend otherwise. When challenged on this he refuses to accept it and accuses me of telling lies in a deliberately uncivil fashion.


 * More desperate, semantic tap-dancing by WMC in order to cover his failure to verify his accusations before he makes them. Fact: the alleged revert was not a revert.  Fact:  William claimed otherwise, apparently without checking first.  Pretty sad, William.  Perhaps if you spent more time contributing content to wikipedia and less time in your petulant little tantrums every time you feel wronged, we would all be the better for it.  --JonGwynne 16:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * A revert of two paragraphs with four cosmetic word changes is still a revert. Vsmith 16:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More (finally gets banned for breaking the 3RR; and again; and again)
(William M. Connolley 21:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Well, JG has finally got his long-deserved ban for breaking the 3RR, this time on Temperature record of the past 1000 years. Will he learn from this? We can only hope.


 * The only think I've learned William is that not only are you a liar (I knew that already, you've done it before) but you are a pompous and sanctimonious one. Wait, I knew that as well.  If you want to teach someone something, it has to be new information.  Can you remember that?--JonGwynne 08:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Also note that he was banned for a second time around, for 24h this time; again, no signs of contrition.


 * Still no signs of comprehension from you.--JonGwynne 20:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) And for a third time, on the 17th (this time for Medieval_Warm_Period).


 * More puerile taunts. Surely you're capable of interacting on a higher level than this William...--JonGwynne 20:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More (vandalism)
JG has now degenerated to simple vandalism: and


 * William has indicated no vandalism yet he accuses me of it anyway. Will his lies ever stop?  It doesn't look like it.--JonGwynne 18:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Time for civility
(William M. Connolley 15:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I'm putting this here, so those interested may see it: on Talk:Medieval Warm Period I am amking an attempt to enforce the no personal attacks rule.


 * The quickest way for you to not be called a liar is for you to stop telling lies. It isn't a personal attack when it is fair comment.  But hearing you call for civility is pretty laughable considering some of your extraordinarily rude comments to others on this site.  Your hypocrisy is astonishing.--JonGwynne 18:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne
(William M. Connolley 00:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I have filed Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne.


 * (William M. Connolley 22:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Update: JG lost the RFA (censured for POV and personal attacks) and appears to have left wiki.