Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Proposed decision

I welcome the findings-of-fact, though I would like to have seen JG's violation of NPOV more explcitly stated.

However, the remedies so far proposed are rather weak. I would like to see a more explicit expression of disapproval of his behaviour; ideally a ban from editing the contentious climate pages for a week or a month.

Also:


 * If he re-inserts any edits which are judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time, up to one week. Repeat deletions of text, similarly judged to result in a violation of NPOV, shall be treated in the same way.

is ambiguous. Does it mean, he re-inserts the edits, this is subsequently discussed, and then he gets banned; or does it mean he re-inserts edits, it gets discussed, then he re-inserts them, then he gets banned? In either case, it seems rather cumbersome.

(William M. Connolley 18:23, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)).


 * (William M. Connolley 10:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)) The one-revert proposal is an excellent remedy and solves my objections above.

re: POV parole
The group of articles related to global warming deal with complex and variably controversial scientific topics. The group of dedicated editors who have worked to achieve a degree of completeness and balance in the articles are serious editors with a wide background and perspective. There will likely always be disagreement on details, but these editors work and discuss to present a reasonably balanced product. The strong POV edits that JonGwynne tried to impose were resisted by editors from both sides of the issue. Any similar strong POV edits or major edits that are not discussed on the talk pages in advance will likely be resisted and referred to discussion. This should be the way to proceed in controversial areas. In view of JonGwynne's past behavior his edits will be closely monitored and any repeat of POV edits and reverts by him should be reason for blocking. This proposed parole is reasonable. The editors involved are not a mob, as accused by a recent JonGwynne supporter, but a group of serious individuals with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. -Vsmith 06:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)