Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne/Response to JG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JG wrote a statement; I disagee with about everything he said. Rather than write over his copy, I've created this copy and will add my replies (William M. Connolley 10:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)). Note that this is *not* my evidence, just a commentary (and somewhat delayed by the wikicrash).

This is just the latest in a laundry list of complaints against me by WMC. If memory serves, they began in earnest when I co-signed a complaint against him on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley because of his inappropriate behavior regarding other used. It should be noted that the complaints against him have gone unresolved and unaddressed. I suspect the reason no one has escalated the matter further is that the rest of us are more interested in writing and editing articles than in wasting the admins' time with complaints that can be addressed between the users involved.

This misrepresents the situation. The trouble began when JG began editing the climate change pages, beginning with global warming (William M. Connolley 10:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

WMC's complaints here are, as per his usual, entirely without merit.

  • What he describes as "POV edits" are, in reality NPOV edits designed to bring balance to the articles on climate-change. He, and a few others, resist them. Others do not. These are issues that can and should be resolved in the ordinary matter of wikipedia.
JGs POV on climate change is so far off the scientific consensus that he perhaps doesn't realise how POV his edits are. Wiki policy on this is clear: the dominant view should be reported, and dissenting views according to their currency. I am happy with that, and have accepted views on the climate change pages with which I strongly disagree. But JG insists on pushing them to an imflated degree.
  • The "series of 3RR bans" are, with one exception (the one on Global Wariming, that was my mistake and I'll take responsibility for that one), entirely illegitimate and only the result of deliberate or negligent misstatements by WMC and one other user.
JG's bans have been thoroughly deserved. Although he claims to believe they are unjustified, he has made no attempt to challenge the admins actions in imposing them. His repeated violations of the 3RR have been accompanied by deceptive edit comments designed to deceive the unwary (William M. Connolley 10:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)).
  • What he describes as "personal attacks" are, in reality, admittedly brusque statements censuring his objectionable behavior as described in his RFC and attempting to discourage repetition of such behavior.
His personal attacks go far beyong "brusque statements" and are, effectively, designed to make editing wikipedia unpleasant for me.
  • His complaints about my edit summaries are subjective at best and ultimately irrelevant in light of the compare tool provided by wikipedia.
(William M. Connolley 10:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)) This "defence" appears to effectively admit the complaint: his edit summaries are deceptive.
  • The RFC he filed against me was not only entirely without merit - I systematically rebutted every single one of his complaints, but it was only endorsed by his group of idealogical supporters.
(William M. Connolley 10:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)) This is false in both parts. Firstly, he rebutted none of the charges (his response to point one is revealing of his general attitude). Secondly, a number of people who cannot possibly be described as my "idealogical supporters" endorsed the RFC [Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JonGwynne#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute]: Ed Poor, who is distinctly skeptical on climate change, and Silverback. I have had disagreements with both of them in the past over the contents of the climate pages. Only someone so far out on the skeptical wing that they have lost their bearings could possibly describe either of them as "idealogical supporters".

It should also be noted that he filed the RFC against me after he tried and failed to get an article of mine deleted.

This refers to the regrettable consensus science. When I listed it, it was a POV disaster and edit-war bait. It secured more votes for deletion than anything else, but wasn't deleted. JGs implication that the RFC was revenge is incorrect.

This whole thing is strongly suggestive of nothing more than a peevish, personal vendetta and a waste of the admins' time. My advice to the admins is: don't let yourselves get sucked into it.

In my opinion, William is a petty, vindictive, narrow-minded person who contributes little to wikipedia apart from extremist environmentalist POV.

This complaint is easy to rebut: I have edited wiki extensively outside the climate pages, although they are my first interest; see my contributions, or more simply User:William M. Connolley/My Images which includes two featured pictures. I also, naturally, do not his accept his claim w.r.t. the climate change pages. I have made great efforts to keep them honest and accurate, and a number of people have endorsed this Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley#Response and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley#Outside_view

Once again, I suggest you reject his complaint out of hand and not let yourselves get dragged into this mess.

(William M. Connolley 10:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I am glad that you have not taken his advice.