Certification by Abd

I consider the certification by Abd to be valid. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certification by Durova

(some comments copied or moved from project page)

1. I dispute this certification as Durova's effort was aimed at the blacklisting issue. I believe that issue was resolved through community dialog, and JzG's action was upheld. I do not see Durova addressing many of the points of contention here. Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I second this dispute. Durova has not intervened in any of the discussed interactions except for the one that closed with a ringing endorsement of JzG's actions.Hipocrite (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The outcome of the blacklisting appeal itself is unrelated to the propriety of recusal. If an administrator blocks an editor while involved in a content dispute, and the block is upheld upon appeal, that does not obviate concerns about the use of the tools while involved in a dispute. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider the certification by Durova to be valid. Durova tried to resolve the dispute here ("...you had a role in the content dispute itself, as well as acting in an administrative capacity. It's important to maintain a separation of function between admin and editorial roles.") Jehochman has provided no diffs to support his claim that JzG's actions were upheld; there may be differences of opinion as to whether or not some previous discussions specifically addressed the issue of JzG's use of tools while involved, or addressed JzG's behaviour as opposed to the merits of upholding the result of his actions; I'm not convinced that these issues were directly addressed in any previous discussion that I'm aware of. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not the action itself was upheld is irrelevant. WP:UNINVOLVED does not state ...unless you're right. It would have been easy for JzG to have brought it to the attention of uninvolved administrators for independent evaluation and implementation. Yet even when confronted after the fact, he sidestepped the issue about recusal. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The action being upheld is highly relevant. It allows WP:IAR to come into play. We don't harass admins with RFCs when they get it right, even if there is arguably a technical violation of a rule. Please show diffs, Durova, where you addressed any of the other points complained about by Abd. The blacklist complaint is trivial because JzG's action was upheld by the community. (By the way, I agreed with you then, and still do now, that JzG should have left that for somebody else to handle. Neverthess, I think this RFC is an excessive, vexatious response.) Jehochman ^Talk 23:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is quite dangerous. Absolutely, WP:IAR. However, when there is a firm policy against use of admin tools while involved, sure, the necessities of the project can justify nearly anything, but there better be a good reason, and, in particular, good reason why this specific administrator must be the one to take the action. Emergencies can justify it. But there was no emergency. There has been no deliberation on the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org here, it was finessed to meta, taken out of our hands, by JzG, decided without notice or debate. It was appealed there, yes, but ... where, please show me, was JzG's action of blacklisting by direct addition to the blacklist "upheld"? This RfC is the first attempt, beyond the direct actions, to deal with the failure-to-recuse problem where the focus was on JzG. It was brought up in the RfAr JzG filed, but that RfAr wasn't about JzG, and it was rejected, quite properly, which was my goal in presenting evidence there. JzG had not disclosed his involvement in long-term dispute with the editor he was trying to get approval regarding. It's very simple, J. He has violated administrative policy -- do you think this isn't a policy? -- and he refuses to recognize it, and that is extremely dangerous, and ArbComm precedent on this is quite clear. If he doesn't turn from this, his bit is toast. There are some admins here who seem to take the attitude that recusal requirements are optional, that one should recuse only so that "someone with a vendetta" can't make trouble. This is a problem, and it, itself, could be the subject of an RfC and arbitration. Hopefully it won't be necessary. The arguments have been raised before, and they lose. It's not marginal, or, J., I wouldn't have bothered with this. As to "other points raised by Abd," Jehochman, you seem quite confused as to what this RfC is about. It's about an administrator using tools when involved in a dispute. There is no other issue here. This one is quite serious enough. A mere bad blacklisting, pfaafff! I wouldn't file an RfC over that! I've seen a number of them, and I simply fix them. If needed, I'd file a content RfC. But once an admin is tenaciously involved, it gets far more difficult. --Abd (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think JzG has abused the tools while engaged in a bona fide content dispute, you should go right to WP:RFAR. I do not think blocking socks of a banned editor is using tools in a content dispute. It seems that the community upheld the blacklisting (which I disagreed with). Yes, admins should not administrate where they are involved, but defining "involved" can be slippery. RFC is good for things that can be evaluated by the community. This incident involves a lot of evidence and gray areas of policy. I do not think RFC is going to provide much benefit to Wikipedia, though it will probably give a lot of ammunition to the tendentious editors who make a messes of articles related to WP:FRINGE and conspiracy theory topics. Jehochman ^Talk 03:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Jehochman, I can't go directly to RfAr, unless I misunderstand the process. This is a dispute, the first two steps were unsuccessful, so the next step is RfC. And then ArbComm, if this doesn't resolve it, which it won't if everyone keeps talking about something other than the RfC on admin recusal. If I went directly to ArbComm, the case would be rejected, I'd expect. From your comments above, you don't know the history. I don't blame you, it's a tangled web. Sometimes "involved" can be difficult to define, but it isn't here. JzG was involved. There is no gray area of policy here, just some members of the community who refuse to look at blatant involvement and blatant abuse. There isn't that much evidence here, if you look at what's relevant. Sure, there is a list of 140 edits in the collapse box, for Talk:Cold fusion. But you don't need to examine those edits in detail. All that is need here is to determine if he was involved or not. The fact is, look at his Response. He's an anti-fringe crusader, pursuing an agenda that ArbComm has condemned. I'm not asking for a topic ban for him, but he shouldn't have touched any fringe article or involved editor with his tools, with that attitude. If Absolute bullocks can be found in reliable source, it belongs in the project. And, over here, is the notable Steaming pile. By the way, I just today looked at the 2004 FA version of Cold fusion, the one that JzG reverted to at one point about a year ago or so. It contained an unsourced and clearly erroneous statement in the lead, one of the classic misunderstandings about this topic; this is a science article, and facts generally should be supported by peer-reviewed journal citations. One of the problems there has been a toxic mixture of peer-reviewed source and popular (and shallow) press, not clearly distinguished from each other. What I hope for from this RfC is that admin abuse stops. I'm not pushing some fringe POV, I'm, in fact, "pushing" for the use of reliable source as the guidelines intend, not to weight articles toward either skeptical or favorable opinion. The topic of Cold fusion is a difficult and complex one, and there is a lot of reading to do to understand it sufficiently to make good judgments about WP:UNDUE, largely due to a huge gap between what is in reliable source (including reviews of the field) and what is in the popular media. It's going to take a lot of work, but there is reliable source for probably ten times as much text as we have; it won't all fit in one article, there will be a number of them. --Abd (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See my comments below, regarding Dan and Coppertwig. It is my opinion that Jehochman has inadequate appreciation of the significance of administrative recusal standards. There is nothing vexatious here, at least as far as my participation goes. Per my statement, if I had any vexatious tendencies they would have been pursued at last year's RfC and arbitration. In regard to dispute resolution and JzG, the record demonstrates I have been quite reticent. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much, but I'll speak for myself. You have no idea what I do or do not appreciate. Clearly, Abd and Dtobias have strong personal conflicts with JzG. That already colors this RFC as grudge-bearing, rather than as legitimate dispute resolution. I don't know whether you have a "history" with JzG. (It was alluded to by somebody.) Do enlighten us. If there is a history of personal conflict, it should be disclosed. Jehochman ^Talk 00:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait a second: you can't certify it if you haven't had a dispute with him, and now you can't certify it if you have had a dispute with him? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you apparently don't understand the certification requirements, or did not carefully read what I wrote. There has to be a good faith attempt to resolve a dispute. Personal conflict can manifest when one party habitually attacks another over any perceived slight. That type of conflict should not come to RFC where the filing party uses the RFC process as a means of personally attacking another editor. That's exactly what I'm complaining about here. A few editors seem to want to jab JzG, and they are using a moot complaint about WP:UNINVOLVED and a bunch of other stale matters as a pretext for putting JzG in hot water. I am calling "bullshit" on this tactic. (Adding: a few good faith editors may have gotten sucked into the process as well.) Jehochman ^Talk 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Jehochman has a point: I have no idea what he does or doesn't appreciate. For that reason I depend entirely upon observations of his actions. What I observe is that, at approximately two month intervals, he acts in ways that are contrary to my understanding of norms for recusal. That is what I call a pattern, and my attempts to engage in dialog with him on this issue have been unsuccessful. If somebody really wants to discuss it further the place to do so would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jehochman; we've gone about as far as we can at this venue, and other than affirming that I differ substantially with him on this principle there seems little left to discuss regarding that matter here. Durova^Charge! 00:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Durova, your attempts at bullying me are despicable. Jehochman ^Talk 02:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Above I have asked for diffs to substantiate your attempts at resolution. Why don't you provide them, instead of attacking me? Jehochman ^Talk 03:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Jehochman, you've failed to understand something. This RfC is purely about administrative recusal. The correctness of the blacklisting or the blocks is not relevant. Durova, on JzG Talk, directly confronted the recusal issue and it was ignored by JzG. She also commented, as did others, in the premature RfAr that JzG filed over the Rothwell block, his attempt to interpret the Pcarbonn ban to cover anyone with a POV resemblance, which would have been disastrous if sustained. Her attempt to address this directly with JzG was clearly a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute, it meets the RfC requirements in spirit and as to the letter. I became involved in this based on a conversation on your Talk page, I investigated and found, indeed, a radically improper blacklisting by an involved admin. It was appealed at the local blacklist Talk page, and there was discussion, and that discussion was closed as moot based on meta blacklisting. It actually should not have been closed, because a delisting decision here would then have been implemented through local whitelisting. I have every confidence that when the matter is "litigated" through WP:DR, should that be necessary, the two blacklisted sites will be delisted here (one) or whitelisted here (the other). From a policy point of view, it's not even marginal. But that's moot here. Was JzG involved? Did he use his tools when involved? Is this contrary to policy? Jehochman, your arguments about personal attack and all that are completely off the point, they are, in fact, disruptive. I had no agenda with respect to JzG, he made this RfC necessary and unavoidable. Please stop it. Please address the issues raised in the RfC or leave it. If you think I'm abusing the process, you know what you can do, there is no filter that would prevent the creation of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abd, and, there, you don't even have to type the link. But, as the instructions say, be careful. It can backfire, as I'm being told on an hourly basis. It certainly can. Please think about it, I know that sometimes, with some reflection, you come to a better understanding. --Abd (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to RFC you. What you've filed here was done in good faith (though perhaps influenced by pique rather than objectivity). I actually have participated in the RFC, even agreeing with you on one outside opinion. My concern here is that a matter is being dealt with in a way that is needlessly harmful to the community. JzG is a good administrator who deals with some of the hardest, stinkiest messes that nobody else wants to bother with. If you think he's been playing fast and loose with uninvolved, I think it would be much more productive for you to have a word with an arbitrator, perhaps User:Carcharoth, and see if somebody could have a word with JzG in a way that does not involve public humiliation. That would be a good step. I find this whole RFC incident regrettable. You remember that I supported both you and Durova when you spoke with JzG. However, I strongly feel this RFC is a step too far. Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certification by Petri Krohn

(some comments copied or moved from project page)

1. I dispute this also. We don't hold RFC's on moot issues. The blacklisting was resolved through community discussion. Where is there an attempt to resolve an actual issue in dispute that remains unresolved? Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I second this dispute. Petri Krohn has not intervened in any of the discussed interactions except for the one that closed with a ringing endorsement of JzG's actions. Hipocrite (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I consider the certification by Petri Krohn to be valid. Petri Krohn tried to resolve the dispute here ("I can see that you (User:JzG) are involved in this issue in at least three different roles"). Regardless of whether a specific community decision was to keep a certain link in the blacklist or not, specifically the issue of JzG's action of putting the link into the blacklist is being addressed here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certification by Dtobias

(some comments copied or moved from project page)

1. I dispute the certification of Dtobias. This was not an earnest effort to resolve a dispute. The history of conflict between these two is legendary. Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I second this dispute, and additionally question if Dtobias is disrupting the encyclopedia by Wikistalking JzG to say the same thing he's said about JzG before. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I consider certification by Dtobias to be valid. Dtobias tried to resolve the dispute here ("But my objection here is less to the specifics of that site or its owner than to the concept that adding things to the blacklist can be done unilaterally without discussion by one admin, while removing them or making exceptions to them requires consensus") It certainly looks to me like an earnest effort to resolve a dispute! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Don't make me laugh. Dtobias wasn't trying to resolve a dispute. He was trying to use JzG as a pincushion. Needling a traditional opponent is not dispute resolution. The fact you'd support this certification, Coppertrig, calls your judgment on the others into question. Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I was hoping Jehochman would leave his comments no farther than they had already gone, but his open accusation regarding Coppertwig's judgment goes a bit too far. The fact is, on matters of administrative recusal Jehochman himself has a questionable record. Last December Sarah--the owner of the unblock requests mailing list--took Jehochman to task for attempting to review and decline an appeal of one of his own blocks. About two months later at arbitration enforcement an editor sought a second opinion of a thread closure Jehochman had performed, and rather than post a request for uninvolved review to AN (which would have been completely above reproach), Jehochman responded by topic banning the editor who had challenged his own decision. I questioned his action on the latter occasion and received an unsatisfactory response. If anyone initiates a similar conduct RfC on Jehochman, I would certify that too. Durova^Charge! 23:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Durova, you're apparently bearing a grudge. Why are you dredging up old disputes? Is your intention here to smear mud all over me so that you can prevail in getting your way? I find your comment to be utterly unhelpful and combative. As for certifying an RFC on me, such behavior would be totally unethical. You have made no good faith attempts to resolve disagreements with me. No, you have actively deceived me, pretended to be my friend, and then attacked me at every opportunity you got. Stop trying to silence me by making threats. Jehochman ^Talk 02:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC) and Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is certification invalid if a certifier is involved in a dispute?

There are two ways to look at this: theory and practice. As to practice, please look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. It was certified by two editors in conflict with GoRight, and this seems to be common.

As to theory, RfC is part of DR. Preceding RfC, there must be an attempt to resolve a dispute on the Talk page of the editor, and DR goals suggest, after direct discussion between two editors fails, that a third be involved. Ideally, this person is neutral, though that isn't required. (perhaps it ought to be!). When this fails, then, two editors who agree that a matter requires community attention can file and certify an RfC. The RfC has, in theory, no power to sanction, though I've seen it done, see the GoRight RfC, which could be appealed to ArbComm if GoRight wanted to; I think he decided that it was more efficient to just accept it.

If DR has been followed, and if the suggested two editors agree that the problem remains, to require yet another neutral person to become involved would be excessive red tape. We could have a process which requires a neutral admin to certify an RfC, might not be a bad idea, but it is no our existing process.

I'm surprised to see this level of wikilawyering over this RfC. I expected objections, for sure, I knew that the certification of Enric Naval was shaky, but I simply decide to let it go and moved the draft directly into WP space; when he withdrew, it was quite appropriately moved back to uncertified status and Spartaz correctly reset the clock. But both Durova and Petri Krohn had directly addressed the problem of admin recusal with JzG, and the matter had not been considered, to my knowledge, by the prior RfC or by ArbComm. It was discussed before ArbComm in the rejected RfAr that JzG filed, and there was quite a bit of comment on recusal there. There really isn't any doubt about the policy, and, I'm afraid, ArbComm has taken a dim view of the position that non-recusal when recusal is required is harmless. In order to determine that it was harmless, we'd have to go through serious process on each of the actions, we cannot just assume that they were "correct" because they weren't challenged, or a challenge was denied at, say, AN/I, which has terrible deliberative process and is frequently derailed. Sometimes abusive admin actions aren't challenged because the abused one has no idea that it is even possible, or believes that it is useless, and that is often the case, even when the action was improper, and reversal would have been the outcome had it been properly deliberated. ArbComm has considered old blocks while involved in reviewing charges of failure to recuse, and is generally looking for evidence that the admin won't do it again, and when the administrator denies the problem, the community (and ArbComm) cannot "forgive and forget," which otherwise it is highly disposed to do, particularly with administrators. --Abd (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman. My complaint is about axe grinding, WP:STICK. You're flogging a dead horse because the community has already reviewed JzG's actions and upheld them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]