You might want to look into this issue, it might have some relevance to the fringe science arbitration case. In these two edits User JzG (talk · contribs) removed vital references from the article on Martin Fleischmann. The first was the removal of the URL-line in an well formed {{Citation}} template, the referred file being a PDF copy of a peer-reviewed paper in Physics Letters A, available on-line at a cold fusion related repository lenr-canr.org. The second was the complete removal of the reference to the original press real, on-line at newenergytimes.com. I tried to restore the link and reference, but was prevented by the spam filter. I do not know what is happening here, but I find it very fishy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns about the spam filter, you may contact WP:WPSPAM. JzG is a reliable editor. That is not a guarantee that ever edit is perfect, but I see no reason to bring this up at arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG has a history of excessive draconianness with regard to the spam filter, which he sometimes uses in order to be the judge, jury, and executioner against sites he dislikes, following it up by labeling as trolls anybody who dares criticize his actions. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are admins and other widely-respected editors who sometimes turn out to be human beings; I know it's disappointing, but we don't have much alternative at this point. If JzG, or anyone, acts improperly, dealing with a specific incident is the way to start. Focus on the edit, not the editor. The spam filter is just a big automated editor, driven by the information fed into it, and if we feed it improper information, we are responsible for that. If a web site is on the filter, improperly, there is process for removing it, should that be justified. All of this is covered by the dispute resolution process, which should begin with direct and fully civil requests. If that is fruitless, and attempts at mediation fail, there is RfC on the specific web site, and there is RfC/U for consistent improper editor behavior (including admin behavior).

A web site that is generally on the spam filter because of multiple improper attempts to link to it can be, I think, excepted for a specific reference (such as for a document copy). If not, there may be grounds for removing the site from the spam list but manually monitoring for it. One issue at a time, at first.

As to calling editors "trolls," that's a violation of WP:CIVIL unless the basis is strong. Again, dealing with a specific incident is where it would start. --Abd (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC) As always, Jehochman, I assume your permission to comment here... Happy New Year! [reply]

That seems about right. It is generally best not to call editors trolls because if they are trolls, they will delight in a public display of umbrage. If they are not trolls, obviously it is hurtful to mislabel them. Dtobias has a history of disagreeing with JzG. A more effective route would be for the editors concerned about the blacklisting to start a dialog at WP:WPSPAM. I don't think that particular website has been spammed, but it also may not qualify as a reliable source. The anti-spam cabal are not keen on letting their list be misused for other purposes. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, every time Dan goes off on one of his little crusades about links, I am reminded of Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life - I get a little song, "every link is sacred" running round my head. The reason lenr-canr was blacklisted was due to relentless promotion by Jed Rothwell, the site owner, and his associates. Spamming, in other words. I don't know if anyone noticed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion? It deals with this fringe advocacy in some detail. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very difficult evaluating this LENR sourcebook as a WP:RS, published by Oxford University Press 6 months ago and currently promoted by lenr-canr.org. Mathsci (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WPSPAM is not political. They won't blacklist things unless they have been spammed. If the site is on the list it may very well have been spammed. Jehochman ^Talk 16:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was. The most recent thread about the site owner was the "Jed Rothwell Travelling IP Roadshow" thread, or whatever it was called; the site owner is the main proponent and source of links to this site. It is quite a routine matter of link spamming by a (in this case POV-pushing and block-evading, thus banned) site owner. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I have, now, investigated a bit on this matter of the spam blacklist. JzG seems to have concluded, on his own, that lenr-canr is to be treated as a spam site. In his "proposal" when he, as an administrator, added lenr-canr to the blacklist, he gave a diff to an IP edit signed by the "librarian" at lenr-canr. That edit seemed totally proper to me, even if argumentative. I have not researched this more deeply, but what is involved is copies of papers by various authors (some of them published in peer-reviewed journals that would make them RS) hosted at lenr-canr. JzG removed some citations from Martin Fleischmann to lenr-canr, and added the site to the blacklist, making it impossible to undo his edits. He's used administrative tools to fix an editorial decision of his in stone. Now, perhaps he's got a good reason. But it doesn't look like it, on the face. Jehochman, he didn't discuss this. The judgment of spam was solely JzG's. Your assumption about "them" is not necessarily correct. This was JzG, apparently acting alone. From his response above, I'd say that JzG has become a bit "involved." That was an uncivil response by him above.

Yes, I've looked at the RfAr. It doesn't authorize any removal of links, it doesn't sanction lenr-canr, it wasn't about lenr-canr, and it seems that JzG is referring to his own evidence submitted there. --Abd (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To explain a little more. The citations removed by JzG were to copies of papers hosted by lenr-canr. The papers themselves were published, and whether or not they are RS would depend on how they are being used. This is always a decision to be made in context; there are occasions where an otherwise utterly unreliable source may be used, because it establishes verifiability. A good example would be a self-published paper, by a notable author, used to verify that, in a controversy, some opinion or claim was made by that author. In this case, one of the links removed was about the history of the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, and the paper was one presented to a conference in which Fleischmann goes over the history. Absolutely, an objection may be made, but we resolve disputes over sources by discussion and consensus, not by administrative fiat.

There is also the issue of possible copyright violation. It's not clear to me that it's our business to determine if material hosted elsewhere is copyvio or not. We aren't legally responsible even if it is, and it would be impossible for us to verify if the thousands or millions of external sites are in copyright compliance or not. I would agree that we shouldn't "promote" an egregious violator, but do we have any evidence that lenr-canr is such? I haven't seen evidence of any violation, only assumptions about it.

Anyway, I do indeed intend to request removal of the site from the blacklist, as you suggested, if I have time. I've got kids to deal with at this point. --Abd (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a huge can of worms, Jehochman. Sorry I even looked at your talk page.... However, now that I know, I can't go back. What I see here is an anti-fringe POV that is not merely an insistence on RS. LENR-CANR.org is a rich library of sources on the topic of cold fusion, it's the kind of thing that, when I read Wikipedia, I want to find. It may be biased; however, it is still useful. It isn't particularly "polemic," though it may certainly contain some polemic articles. I have, in the past, seen highly useful web sites removed as external links from Wikipedia because they contained advertising; and I know that my own knowledge of those subjects would be significantly poorer if I'd only read the article after the removal. I'm not claiming that the site is a reliable source in itself. It is a *resource*, and a significant one, and this can be established, I believe. The decision to use or not use a site shouldn't be made unilaterally by an administrator, preventing ordinary editors from asserting a different position; JzG, here, removed a link from an article and at the same time made it impossible to undo his edit by blacklisting the site, using his admin tools. That's an admin making a content decision with the tools. He has been asserting a series of justifications, one of the latest being a BLP claim, though BLP isn't relevant to the spam blacklist, and his use of his admin tools to apparently support a content position of his, which is the *only* serious issue I've raised. You know how I work, Jehochman, one step at a time. He's not responsive, so I'll need to take some more steps, apparently.

(I have some substantial knowledge about cold fusion; when the Fleischmann-Pons experiment was announced, I immediately went out and bought about $10,000 worth of palladium. (It was sold a few years later, I have no COI!) I've followed the matter occasionally since then. There is serious research on-going, and this could be a case where "scientific consensus" is premature. The point has been made that no mechanism is known that would explain it, but that is actually an antiscientific attitude; sure, it makes something unlikely, but it also closes the door to possible new discovery. There are experimental anomalies involved, and that's the kind of thing that does, indeed, merit further research, it can lead to new science. Cold fusion was a long shot from the beginning and probably remains one, but a lot of research is like that. Obviously, we need take special care to present the known facts and the history in full accordance with our policies, but the controversy itself is an encyclopedic topic, and applying scientific RS standards to what is also a sociological or historical topic may not be appropriate. I've started to look at the Cold fusion RfAr, and it worries me a bit, but I haven't examined the reasoning in detail yet.) --Abd (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something here relevant to the Fringe science arbitration.... --Abd (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add the evidence. We should not be censoring information we disagree with. That site might be a good example of the fringe view. I have never added anything to the spam blacklist so I do not know the proper procedures. It may be useful for the Committee to clarify this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...if you get that tingle of adrenaline as you are about to his the save button, hit the back button instead and don't do whatever you were going to do." This really needs to be codified as scripture all throughout our policy pages and guidelines. Good job. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know about that from hard experience. You should see the stupidness I don't post. Jehochman ^Talk 06:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have reached broad amicable agreement in one thread, and engaging in dispute in another. The dispute thread is probably sterile and unhelpful in the context of the debate. Shall we mutually call a halt on it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the direction to WP:Oversight. I'd never heard of them. I've followed up with an admin listed there. Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. This site is an endless collection or processes and features. Jehochman ^Talk 02:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually might be called a hypocrite for this, but I am drafting an article on a relative. I would like your opinion on whether you think he's notable under WP:ATHLETE, and whether it's a viable stub based on WP:POV and WP:RS. I am contacting another admin as well. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am notoriously horrible at predicting the results of deletion discussions. It would not be too harmful to write an article like that as long as you follow the consensus of other editors. A disclosure on the talk page of your relationship may be helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm interested in beginning admin coaching, and noticed you have a slot open. Would you be willing to start coaching me? I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding what I've done on enwp so far. Thanks! — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 14:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about the coaching program. It may be better for you to just go about your business and wait until you get noticed and nominated. I recommend hanging around at WP:COIN and WP:SSP and helping to resolve cases. You should also try to work articles through the WP:DYK, WP:GAC and WP:FAC processes. Participation at WP:AFD is another useful exercise. You may also watch some of the cases at WP:RFAR to gain an understanding of some of the challenges facing Wikipedia.

Feel free to ask me for advice at any time. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I will take your advice to heart, and will probably hold you up to your offer and ask when I need advice. Thanks! — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 16:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be WP:BLP issues with this article of a public figure (possible candidate for United States Surgeon General). Could you look into it and see if probation is needed (as it often is with Barack Obama related articles?Builtsoap3 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems fine at the moment. I am flattered that your first edit to Wikipedia was my humble talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i was hoping you could give me some more advice. here's an example of the kind of provocation i've been dealing with from user:MickMacNee, (block log), the user who reverted all my edits on the jonty haywood article and then raised the deceptive ssp against me. take a look at the following sequence of events:

1. mickmacnee's last edit to the article before yesterday was on 20th dec 08
2. you blocked me on 22nd dec, and nobody touched the haywood article all the time i was blocked
3. yesterday you unblocked me at 14:41pm
4. and then at 15:59pm yesterday, barely an hour after you unblocked me, mickmacnee suddenly makes this revert of a reliable source that i added to the article weeks ago. his edit summary says "rm claim only verifiable in a foreign language source".

now i'm not silly enough to edit the article and get re-blocked. but an editor of his experience knows that foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable as far as wp:v is concerned, and he knows that i know it too. this, and the timing of his sudden revert straight after you unblock me, suggests strongly that he is deliberately trying to provoke me into contesting his edit so that he can get me blocked again.

i don't know what it is this user has against me, but the above suggests that he is more concerned with getting me in trouble than actually improving the article. i also realise now that his reversions of my edits in early december were probably a deliberate attempt to provoke a reaction so that he had some "evidence" for his ssp, and it was stupid of me to react the way i did. i'm not asking you to take any action against him, i'm trying to ignore him and get back to editing other topics, but i could use your advice on the best way of dealing with situations like this.

thanks again for the unblock. Jessi1989 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that is a reliable source because I don't read Dutch. I strongly urge you to remove Jonty Haywood from your watchlist and ignore it completely. You'll only convince me that you need to be reblocked if you go back there advocating for the insertion of dubious material. Good advice: don't take the bait and assume good faith, especially when you think it is not deserved. Jehochman ^Talk 15:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey, thanks, yeah you're right, i'll ignore mick and that article. take a look at De Pers if you doubt it's reliabilty, it's a very popular paper in holland. anyway, thanks for all your help. hopefully i won't have to bother you again :) Jessi1989 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on the current proposal. I've temporarily moved your point to the talk page as it's been raised on both talk and draft proposal, and it's quite conditional - best discussed right now.

We aren't "consensus seeking" at the moment, so the proposal page isn't really a "vote" page and attracting people to think of it as such won't help. A couple of notes who proposed and endorsed it is one thing, that's background (who's backing the proposal as it stands), and the list shouldn't be encouraged to grow. So I have added a note (commented in the proposal) that other users should not just "add to the list"; that's not its aim. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to replace it by a note of the form "partial endorse, see talk page", that's more concise and might be helpful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved all the signatures to the talk page where the different views are on equal footing. Jehochman ^Talk 03:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do for now, I think. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to refactor the views into some sort of organized format, and if people want to list their thoughts and the reasons, let them. I am trying to work towards consensus, not sabotage your proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 04:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've actually made me think on this. I was concerned a bit about advocacy slipping into the list. It ws intended as a brief list to indicate to people skimming it, who was "behind the proposal", which some people would wish to know. The addition of short comments was not really right, but a few words.. meh. What I've done instead (which I wouldn't have without your intervention, and which I think is better) is I've asked permission of those who made any extended comments to move all their detailed comments completely to the talk page, where they can be read or discussed fully. I've also put a commented note for editors that it's not intended to be a "long list of advance support" but an indication of proposers only, and please not to add more.

Your name is also in that list, exactly equal, with an emphasized note (italic) that it's partial endorsement only and the identical link to your full comments listed with everyone else's. I put it in the correct place time-wise (ie after Durova, before Coren, I think). I left it commented though as it's not really for me to make a final step of "signing you back in" or assuming this would work for you, but if you edit the page you can easily remove it fully, or else de-comment it for quick inclusion. If that doesn't work, then let me know - I'll watch this page for a bit to save "splitting" this thread. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.---.com/article/508691/talking_to_greys_anatomy_writer_shonda.html?page=2 replace --- with "associatedcontent" without quotes

I was trying to use that URL as a reference to make some edits Grey's Anatomy, but the URL is blacklisted; do you know what I can do about this?

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]