( William M. Connolley 22:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)) This page is now superceeded by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne, which itself has concluded.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 22:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC).
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.
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.
(provide diffs and links)
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
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
This is a non-issue.
Applicable policies
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
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 ~~~~):
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 Wikipedia: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 ~~~~):
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!
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley
Really, I don't see what the problem is.
I've been involved with Jon Gwynne on other chat boards and there has never been any reason to complain. He's one of the few posters I know of who you can trust to be consistent in his views, well informed and unbiased in his argumentation. He plays hard, but fair, and not without a wry sense of humour. But as long as he gets back what he dishes out himself, I've never seen him get upset.
As far as I am concerned, it's equally fun to agree with him as it is to disagree.
After all, this is a board for debate. So what if it gets a bit heated now and then...
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
( 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: [10].
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)
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)
( 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/?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&curid=36795&action=history. Further, he has broken the 3RR rule on Carbon_dioxide and is unapologetic about it.
( 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. [11]
( William M. Connolley 11:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)) After this [12] 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: [13].
( 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! [14]
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:
Hint: The correct answer is underlined.
Now, for the extra credit question:
-- 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." —
Ben 21:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 16:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) JG points to this exchange [15] as a non-revert. A comparison of the versions ( [16]) 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 [17] and accuses me of telling lies in a deliberately uncivil fashion.
( 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.
( 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.
( William M. Connolley 19:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) And for a third time, on the 17th (this time for Medieval_Warm_Period).
JG has now degenerated to simple vandalism: [18] and [19]
( 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.
( William M. Connolley 00:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne.
( William M. Connolley 22:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)) This page is now superceeded by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne, which itself has concluded.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 22:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC).
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.
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.
(provide diffs and links)
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
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
This is a non-issue.
Applicable policies
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
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 ~~~~):
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 Wikipedia: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 ~~~~):
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!
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley
Really, I don't see what the problem is.
I've been involved with Jon Gwynne on other chat boards and there has never been any reason to complain. He's one of the few posters I know of who you can trust to be consistent in his views, well informed and unbiased in his argumentation. He plays hard, but fair, and not without a wry sense of humour. But as long as he gets back what he dishes out himself, I've never seen him get upset.
As far as I am concerned, it's equally fun to agree with him as it is to disagree.
After all, this is a board for debate. So what if it gets a bit heated now and then...
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
( 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: [10].
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)
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)
( 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/?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&curid=36795&action=history. Further, he has broken the 3RR rule on Carbon_dioxide and is unapologetic about it.
( 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. [11]
( William M. Connolley 11:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)) After this [12] 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: [13].
( 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! [14]
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:
Hint: The correct answer is underlined.
Now, for the extra credit question:
-- 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." —
Ben 21:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 16:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) JG points to this exchange [15] as a non-revert. A comparison of the versions ( [16]) 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 [17] and accuses me of telling lies in a deliberately uncivil fashion.
( 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.
( 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.
( William M. Connolley 19:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) And for a third time, on the 17th (this time for Medieval_Warm_Period).
JG has now degenerated to simple vandalism: [18] and [19]
( 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.
( William M. Connolley 00:07, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne.