• 18 December 2008, JzG removes links to lenr-canr from two articles[1][2], opens a discussion in the talk page of the local blacklist[3]also adds newenergytimes.com later and adds lenr-canr to the local blacklist without waiting for replies [4]
• 31 December 2008 Petri Kohn complains at Jehochman's talk page about the removal and having problems with the spam filter to re-add them [5]
• 7 January 2009 Abd challenges the local blacklisting here
• 8 January 2009 JzG goes to meta and proposes addition to the meta blacklist here
• 10 January 2009 Erwin adds lenr-canr to the meta blacklist making reference to the talk page thread [6] (which at that moment has only the original proposal, a recommendaton from Ohnoitsjamie favoring inclusion, a reply from JzG, and the rationale of Erwin for accepting the proposal)
• 10 January 2009 The local blacklist discussion gets closed becasue of the blacklisting at meta, and everyone gets sents to the whitelist talk page

lenr-canr.org is still blacklisted at meta, and requests to remove have been replied by the meta admins saying it won't be removed and that they must ask for whitelisting of specific links. See the archived thread holding all the discussions, the very last comment is a summary by Mike, explaining why it won't be removed and archiving the request for good. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Enric. Please consider that the blacklisting was mentioned as an example of use of tools while involved. Only the first of these actions listed above involved admin tools (directly adding the links to the blacklist). There is no "timeline" as such, and, while the list in the RfC may be incomplete, the items above wouldn't belong in it. The article edits were mentioned because they were simultaneous and the blacklisting was then similar to editing an article and then protecting it (and it literally functioned that way, his edits could not be reverted). The topic here is administrative recusal, not whether or not the blacklisting was ultimately proper or sustained. It has not, however, actually been challenged through dispute resolution process, because of political necessity under the status quo, i.e., the use of the blacklist to control content is accepted by many or most administrators active with the blacklist, and I'd prefer to address systemic solutions that consider the legitimate needs of the blacklist volunteers and that don't tie their hands, but remove from them the temptation to become content judges, by involving other editors in the whitelisting and delisting process. I want to make it more efficient, not less. --Abd (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC JZG 3[edit]

Please remove your section. This is ancient news. There has already been an RFC on Guy's swearing and he was admonished for it in an arbitration hearing and has subsequently smartened up his act. None of this is relevant to the issue of the RFC and will create unnecessary drama. Your diffs are all 2 years old. Please remove the section - it reflects more badly on you then Guy. We strive to be fair and you look like kicking a man for an offence he has already been punished for. We dont do double jeopardy.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below. --Abd (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Ikip (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make a comment complaining of the same thing, but Spartaz has already summed it up very well. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3[edit]

The RfC was filed to deal with administrative failure to recuse, not incivility or other violations, and comments as you started to make there are out of place and simply confuse the issue. That's true of comments on the other side, but one of my major points is that we should restrain our allies, and that if those who support JzG restrained him, we wouldn't have the problem and his admin bit would be safe, I believe. You have the perfect right to make your comments, but I consider them not useful. There was already an RfC and an Arbcomm finding about prior JzG behavior, and if the old behavior has resumed, that is still irrelevant to the present RfC; the time to bring it up would be if the present issue goes to ArbComm, where other possible misbehavior would become relevant.

Your comments may inflame an already difficult situation, presenting cause for more defense and flames. Please keep the focus of the RfC on admin recusal and do not make inflammatory comments. It is hard enough to keep that focus as it is. Please redact, if you agree, and make your comment about the narrow issue, which might as well assume that JzG was right in terms of his goal being something that the community would support, but that his use of tools, because of his involvement, was a serious violation of policy. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3, Jzg's defenders. That is all I have to say on this issue here. Thank you for your concerns, I respectfully disagree. And I ask that you please keep comments here, where they are relevant to this issue at hand. Ikip (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, wait, if there are "JzG's defenders", then are there also "JzG's detractors"? Just saying :D --Enric Naval (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved from the main page[edit]

Moved from the Ikip section of this RfC:

((Added after - I have dropped Ikip a note about this - all of these issues were addressed in RFC JZG 2 and the subsequent arbitration case. None of the diffs appear to be recent Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)))[reply]

Please address your concerns with my section in your own, as per established RfC protocol. I appreciate your concerns, but I respectfully disagree. Ikip (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old content RfC worth reviewing at Talk:Answers_in_Genesis/Archive_2#RfC; one of the rare occasions when dispute resolution ended in a collective barnstar. Answers in Genesis is an organization that advocates young earth creationism. The rightness or wrongness of the organization's mission was irrelevant; what was at issue was whether original research was being performed by Wikipedians to make the organization appear in a worse light than newspaper reports had presented. Upon examination of the source material I agreed that was occurring, and asked editors to set aside their content opinions and focus on the pure mechanics of site policies and citation methods. It was one of the rare occasions where all parties proved willing to do so. As a result the article improved substantially and I thanked the editors for placing Wikipedian collaboration above personal views on a hot button topic.

For two years the naked short selling dispute split senior volunteers of this website into two different camps, and it split the community because partisans on both sides of the actual dispute persuaded Wikipedians to share their POVs. To this day I don't know which POV was right, and don't care either. The actual disputants were breaking policies on both sides; Wikipedians allowed their partisanship to blind themselves to the policy issues; the site became a battleground and I do care very much about learning from that collective mistake.

POV partisans of various sorts will always show up at this site. We're an open edit project; that goes with the territory. The only credible way to counter that is to rise above it. Demonstrate by example that Wikipedia is not a place where policies can be invoked or discarded according to convenience. WP:IAR has its place as a last resort, but if we allow its abuse when legitimate alternatives are readily available then we start down a dangerous path. It's easy to open an administrative noticeboard thread to ask for independent review and action: recusal is the Teflon that stops mud-throwing from sticking. Durova^Charge! 05:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that RFC is a Success, I'd hate to see failure. The only reason that article was fixed is that AA and assorted xxxxpuppets (defined as "any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel.") were banned from it. I think the same might fix Cold Fusion. Perhaps we should include the ban to "any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Pcarbonn." Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a different editor on shifting IP addresses that was going after a related article about one of the organization's employees, and various other pages. That is unrelated to the scope of this particular content RfC, though. And interestingly, he commented upon the WP:BATTLE stance of subsequent dispute resolution to say that it validated his approach of not even trying to work within site processes. A year later he was still on shifting IP addresses, still disrupting. She had tried to work collaboratively within DR, and was gone. Durova^Charge! 17:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova states that her "successful" rfc was not related to the rfar I reference. I disagree. I base my statement on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Focus_of_dispute, which reads "This dispute is centered on LIVING PERSON and associated articles such as Answers in Genesis..." (emph mine). If your saying that the article was fixed, I agree. The reason the article was fixed is that the entire anti-science side of the dispute was banned, and the pro-reality side of the dispute could deal with it's problem children instead of having to batten down the hatches against the invading hordes. Oh look, it's the same pattern we've seen Over, and Over and Over again. Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not be aware, I followed up a year later because the arbitration had been ineffective. The same IP editor was actually disrupting a range of articles related to the biological sciences which were not covered by the scope of the arbitration decision, although he was not active at the Answers in Genesis page during the RfC in question. The arbitration committee declined my request to amend the case, and due to BLP concerns I was unable to pursue a community ban on that abusive editor. This is nearing the limit of what I am at liberty to discuss onsite, but I assure you both that I did pursue due diligence in followup and that the concerns you raise are a separate matter from the RfC provided as an example. If you would like followup I must request that it be offsite (gchat, Skype or email) due to the BLP issue that would inevitably arise. Durova^Charge! 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, in summary, abusive editors got banned, evaded the ban, were RBIed, and the good editors kept working on the articles to make them work? Ok, let's follow that chain of thought here. Why is Abd allowed to edit Cold Fusion pages, exactly? Here - I promise that if the CF advocates are all RBIed, I will personally make sure that JzG never does anything about cold fusion ever again, on pain of nothing. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the limited ban from two articles was inadequate. An abusive editor remained free to disrupt a wide range of articles, and did so. And another editor was banned from a page where she had been constructive. It was a curious case, and I repeat the invitation to discuss it in greater detail offsite. This was the prior instance I was referring to during the Mantanmoreland case, of an instance where I seriously wanted to propose a siteban but was stopped at all turns for reasons that related to BLP. I am not at liberty to debate it in detail onsite, and it is largely irrelevant to the point I was making. Durova^Charge! 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think that we need to ban Abd from the entire encyclopedia, I'm not going to disagree. Hipocrite (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection[edit]

Or, why is Abd allowed to edit Cold Fusion pages, exactly?[edit]

(For context, Hipocrite commented above: Why is Abd allowed to edit Cold Fusion pages, exactly?)

I'm allowed because I have violated no policies or guidelines, to my knowledge, I have no entrenched POV and no COI, I seek consensus, and know how to find it, though it takes time, I don't edit war, I don't try to get editors I disagree with blocked or banned, I welcome all editors regardless of POV and attempt to integrate them into the consensus process, assuring them (and proving by my actions) that their POV will be heard and considered, I warn editors informally, usually off their Talk pages, because I want to encourage voluntary acceptance of behavioral guidelines instead of through threats, which don't work in the long run (and a formal warning is like a threat, though it might be necessary sometimes), and ... on the matter of Fringe, I've been working to make the ArbComm decision on Fringe science a functional reality with Cold fusion. Because I have no crystal ball, I do not know what the article will look like when I'm done, though from my review of peer-reviewed literature over the last few months, many hours of research and discussion, I think it will be, ultimately, pretty different, and it will be stable, because there will be consensus behind it. Now, Hipocrite, please, why should I be banned? What did I do? Your classification of me as a "CF advocate" is reprehensible. It's true, I've come to the conclusion based on my reading that there is a nuclear phenomenon involved in the Fleischmann-Pons effect. Me, plus every other recent reviewer published in RS who has done more than make assumptions from conclusions in 1989. I doubt that Hipocrite has any knowledge on this subject at all, he's merely parroting a factional line, probably unworthy of even this short comment. So, yes, I have a POV. I don't consider myself an expert, but I'll note that experts have POVs, more often than the ignorant, but worse than ignorance is belief entrenched and not amenable to investigation. The reality of his proposal: get rid of all those who are actually knowledgeable on the topic, and leave the article to the ignorant. And if one of these does enough reading to come up to speed, to do more than repeat the shallow mainstream pop media coverage, much of which is based on recycled shallow material from 1989, why, then, the person would be covered under the new ban. Tell me, what kind of consensus would that be? No, Hipocrite's approach would be the death of NPOV and, indeed, of Wikipedia. It has already done a great deal of damage, which, fortunately, can be undone, because ArbComm is wise to this crap. --Abd (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My summary of the above comment by Abd:

Abd is allowed to edit Cold fusion because he follows policies and guidelines and seeks consensus, listening to those of all POVs and working cooperatively, gently raising for discussion any problems that arise with other editors. He's working to implement the Arbcom decision on Fringe Science, and expects the final resulting cold fusion article to be very different and to be solidly supported by consensus. Those who have read the latest research generally believe there are nuclear processes happening in the cold fusion experiments. To believe this is not a sign of an entrenched POV or COI, and to ban all those who believe so would be the death of NPOV.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking with Durvoa. Please don't interupt us. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public discussion page; anybody can "interrupt". And your philosophy about how to end the strife in contentuous topics sounds a lot like "Just ban everybody who disagrees with me; that way we'll have peace! Who cares about NPOV anyway?" *Dan T.* (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, Abd's massive paragraphless stream of conciousness "short" comment was blatently disruptive - he dosen't understand why his long meandering comments add no value, but he's been told this, over and over and over. And yes, my philosophy on how to solve the never ending wars over fringe science topics is to ban everyone who is in opposition to describing things as they actually are. Its an encyclopedia, you know, not an experiment in content creation. Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Abd's refusal to be concise (the requirement for example in ArbCom cases) is unhelpful. It is indeed one of the essential qualities for writing an encyclopedia, lest we forget! In the rare moments when he is concise and speaks directly, he has made snide personal attacks. Is this kind of behaviour condoned or encouraged by his supporters, or are they turning a blind eye? Mathsci (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci's comments in this case are quite unhelpful, they will either be harmless or they will encourage JzG to carry on as if nothing happened, and the result of that will be the loss of his admin bit. I do not "refuse to be concise." I'm not concise when I'm engaged in open discussion, sometimes. Yes, we are writing an encyclopedia, do I ramble on and on on article pages? There are two kinds of discussion here, they work in different ways: (1) short pithy expressions of POV, pointing to sources, brief questions and brief responses. This can work when cooperative context has been established. Otherwise these either are or can be taken as salvos in a battle. (2) extended discussion which is aimed at developing general consensus, or specific consensus, which requires resolving many subquestions. Not everyone is suited for the second kind, so my suggestion is that those for which it works use it, and the others skim it or skip it. There will be opportunity for short, pithy back-and-forth later. See the mini-RfC over the lenr-canr.org link addition at Martin Fleischmann. Long discussion was reduced, using collapse boxes, to conclusions. Anyone could still disagree with those conclusions, and discussion would continue. But at some point it's beating a dead horse. Attacking extended discussion is attacking what is known to work in consensus process, and thus is attacking the ultimate foundation of NPOV for the project. Very dangerous.

Thanks, Mathsci, for the specific example. (1) This was my Talk page, where I have more latitude. (2) Every comment there was literally true. This was sincere advice to JzG, made in response to his notice on my Talk page. Compare it to JzG's comments in response to discussion of the problem on his Talk page, and you will see that you are turning a blind eye to serious refusal to discuss, while dumping on sincere advice offered in a completely non-harassing way. Your POV is showing, Mathsci. I was concise in the RfC (that's why it took so long!), and I can assure you, I'll be concise if this goes to ArbComm, which you seem to be encouraging, in effect. --Abd (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. If you can't be consise, stop writing on talk pages, it's disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd's disproportionate response is another example of his ongoing disruption. In his personal attack on JzG that I referenced above, he claimed to represent ArbCom: that is clearly not the case. He has signally failed to explain the mocking tone he used on his talk page, which was a personal attack. This policy applies everywhere on wikipedia, especially on users' talk pages. Editors have been indefinitely blocked for careless words used on their talk pages: no extra latitude is allowed there, except in removing comments. Abd seems to have gone out of his way to WP:BAIT JzG, fortunately with little or no effect.Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, is Abd really suggesting that the next step after this RFC is to take Guy to arbitration? Last I checked the most endorsed sections of this were Guys response and my section suggesting that Abd is beating a dead horse and is in danger of beingtopic banned from Guy and Cold Fusion. This really does need to stop now. The RFC outcome is already clear. Fritzpoll has given useful advice to Guy about avoiding the impression of COI in admin actions but specifically states that Guy did nothing wrong. Essentially the community mostly accepts that Guy acted reasonably and that this should drop, albeit there is a thread suggesting greater care to avoid the impression of admining under a COI. With respect to the Guy bashing side, and with due to respect to some of those endorsing sections, but I did notice that lots of editors endorsing are what me might call the "usual suspects" in that they already have well known and hostile entrenched opinions about him. My reading is that the vast majority of uninvolved commentators are not supporting the anti Guy rhetoric. To read this that this needs to go to Arbitration looks like harassment to me now and a failure to understand or listen to the emerging consensus. Abd asked for community input and has got it. They should accept this now and let go. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My summary of the above comment by Abd of 13:33, 7 April:

Mathsci's comments might encourage JzG to continue as he's been doing, resulting in loss of admin bit. Abd is concise in some contexts, but elsewhere being concise can look like attacks; or long comments can be necessary for in-depth discussion. Those who don't benefit from long comments can skim or skip them. See discussion at Martin Fleischmann, organized with collapse boxes. The diff Mathsci gave was from Abd's talk page, and is sincere advice.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Coppertwig, you have accurately summarized. This RfC does not indicate consensus, at this point, and it appears to indicate a majority opinion, but majority on what? Three very specific questions were asked, and consensus isn't clear on those questions, and they are quite important questions, and we have reputable editors agreeing with that. What I'm saying is that if there is no consensus here, (and, on an issue like this, 2:1 isn't consensus, remember that it takes 3:1 to grant an admin bit), then there is an arbitratable issue of weight. However, I am not saying that I will, for sure, go to ArbComm. I could, however, go there at any point, as could anyone, opinions have been given here to that effect. My opinion is that simply allowing this RfC to continue for a time, to make sure that the division is not resolvable by discussion, is the best course. But participants should be aware that inflammatory comments will increase the likelihood of an arbitration, and, in some cases, could possibly make the editor an involved party. I'm fully aware that my own behavior will come under scrutiny if this goes to ArbComm. So I'm urging caution for all parties. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Abd, I think that any uninvolved experienced wikipedian can read the consensus quite clearly. If you find this difficult to accept, why not ask one to give you their opinion of how this is going but please take care to ask someone with no axe to grind? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "someone with no axe to grind" do you mean "someone who has not previously expressed support for the principle of administrative recusal"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, why would I suggest that? I was thinking you should find someone who a) doesn't hate guy, b) isn't previously involved in Cold Fusion or Fringe debates, c) doesn't already have a position in this trainwreck. Just ask them to read the RFC and advise where they think the balance of the consensus is. I'd personally suggest you ask one of the 'crats if you can find one willing to look through this lot. Judging consensus is what we pay them for after all.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think RfCs often run for 30 days and that an uninvolved admin may summarize it at the end. You've given your summary, and I'll give mine: we have about 12 editors endorsing statements clearly stating that JzG has used tools while involved, that using tools while involved is against policy, and asking him to stop doing that. We have about double that number of editors endorsing statements that gently suggest to JzG that it would be good to let other admins handle such situations in order to avoid complaints. I would say the consensus of this RfC is a message to JzG advising him to leave it to other admins to handle such situations. To me, the important thing is that JzG begin abiding by the policy; whether he does so because he believes it's the right thing to do or because he wishes to avoid complaints is not all that important. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't dispute your point that this should run for 30 days which is partly why I'm so surprised that Abd was already talking about going for arbitration next. I have absolutely doubt of your good faith and you have certainly been the most reasonable of the proponents for this RFC. The problem is that you are not driving the process and, if you were, I would be very surprised if things had reached the trainwreck that this RFC has become. I am very concerned that Abd is not getting the message that this has to be the end of the matter. Their inability to recognise what the community is already saying about this dispute is deeply concerning, which is why I suggested they went to someone uninvolved to help them understand the emerging consensus. Obviously, I don't know how experienced you are at RFCs, but it would be extremely out of kilter for the rough consensus already emerging for this to change substantially - especially as many of the usual suspects have already crawled out of the woodwork and joined their voices in their expected chorus of disapproval for all things JzG related. Truthfully this is not an RFC that is going to reach a conclusion that Guy should be censured although I do think the advice to take care not to give the impression of admining while involved is probably going to be the strongest sub strand to the conclusions. Its just very frustrating that Abd in particular still can't (or won't) see this and is talking about taking this further because that would be harrassment and ignorning the community consensus and would IMO become unacceptably disruptive and divisive at that point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig, irrespective of procedural issues, could you please indicate clearly at this stage whether you personally regard lenr-canr.org as a reliable source, or a fringe website put up by an amateur with no prior scientific training? Otherwise your wikilawyering here seems unhelpful - a bit like a witch-hunt to catch your fellow wikipedians out. Of course I'm not encouraging JzG to repeat this kind of action, unless there is an analogous fringe website being pushed for inclusion in a WP article in similar circumstances. My view is that JzG is indeed a tad outspoken and headstrong but that this current confrontational procedure, initiated by Abd, is not a helpful way to move forward, particularly if Abd's ultimate intention is an RfAr (this SPA seems to make no secret of that).

The website www.aias.us [7] is referred to in Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, but at the moment there is little support for that fringe pseudoscientific theory, based as it is on fairly basic mathematical errors and misunderstandings in differential geometry. However if there were massive support in the future and the contents of this website were pushed as being a valid source by editors playing the system, I would definitely support a blacklisting. I doubt that this will happen.

That is why I think that Coppertwig is envisaging hypothetical situations which fall far outside the reality of the real scientific world. This reality includes for example the fact that Biberian is employed as a lowly Maitre-de-Conference on one of the campuses of my present university and was the treasurer of a cult that was at one time banned by the French government. Another reality is that Martin Fleischmann was a close friend of my family when I was a toddler, half a century ago, before the internet was dreamed of. Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Mathsci, please do not derail this RfC, which is about admin behavior, by incivility and by trolling asking for content positions and argument. No claim has been made by me that lenr-canr.org satisfies WP:RS, and it's irrelevant here. I'm not an SPA, period, and your consistent disruptive comments here are radically out of place. I'm not going to warn you on your Talk page, but don't be surprised if someone else does. Stop it. --Abd (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to consensus here, as the matter stands at the moment, Spartaz raised the issue on my Talk page, and I discussed it in detail there, if anyone is interested. I assure editors that I would not file an RfAr without the support of an experienced editor, no matter what my own personal opinion is. And if we want the opinion of neutral editors, why don't we invite them to participate here, by making notice of this RfC, say, on the Village Pump? Please remember the rules on canvassing, so, I'd suggest that the text of any such notice be a matter of general agreement here, to ensure that it's neutral. Since Cold fusion has been so heavily affected by JzG action, it's also possible a notice would go there. But I'm not about to take any action at this point that isn't supported by consensus. --Abd (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do seem to me to look a bit like an SPA. Most of my contributions are to mainspace articles. I am unaware that I have made a personal attack on you. Why are you now making ad hominem remarks about me? Many people are upset by your decision to open this RfC. Your claims to represent consensus seem at present unfounded. Also what you have said about ArbCom in several places seems to be unfounded. In RL, I am preparing lectures on Selberg's trace formula to be given in Cambridge and in France after Easter; bits are beginning to make their way onto WP as I detect gaps or errors here (eg in Representations of the Lorentz group). Why not edit something urelated to fringe science for a change? Just a thought. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please ask that you refactor the word "trolling"? Please read WP:NPA. Mathsci (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Done. The vast bulk of my edits have nothing to do with fringe science. In recent months, though, I've been, indeed, focusing on Cold fusion, which is fascinating. Is Cold fusion "fringe science"? To answer that question is actually quite difficult. If we look at popular sources and news media, and especially at older reports, the answer is obviously yes, and, indeed, there is a lot of older opinion that it is pseudoscience. If we look at peer-reviewed publications from 1989, we could likewise conclude something like this, but even then there are some problems. The 1989 DOE review, for example, did not treat the topic as fringe, you do not have a review panel like that concluding that further research should be done with pseudoscience, certainly, though possibly with fringe science that is really "emerging science" (i.e., still controversial). However, later peer-reviewed published research and reviews are overwhelmingly in the other direction. It is probably true that the majority of "mainstream scientists" still reject cold fusion, but unlikely that the majority of, say, electrochemists do this; the majority of physicists almost certainly still reject it, but much of the recently published research is coming from physicists, including qualified hot-fusion specialists. It is, in truth, a difficult call, once one goes beyond factions of editors trading insults and hostile edits. I really don't want to get far into content details here; my point is only that there is reason to doubt the knee-jerk response to Cold fusion as "fringe," and further assumptions based on that.

It has taken me months to get up to speed on this topic. In what is a first for me in my Wikipedia history, I've purchased some of the major books published on it, besides reading on-line until my eyes are bleary. It's a field where it is terribly easy to make snap judgments that are wrong (both pro- and con-). It's a field where contemporary newspaper reporters state, as fact, old comments and conclusions that made some sense in 1989, but which are preposterous now, given the record and what is in peer-reviewed journals, for example the claim, oft-repeated, that "nobody was able to replicate their results." I have a list of something like 150 peer-reviewed publications showing confirmation of excess heat, which is the core of what Fleischmann found. (Fleischmann's radiation findings were discredited as artifacts, this is generally accepted among cold fusion researchers, but there is other work showing radiation and nuclear ash, much more solid, in fact conclusive, since then. Different radiation, different levels, than what was expected, but nuclear, and not present in controls.) And I could go on and on. And it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong, our consensus process, if we use it, will handle finding NPOV. Our sourcing guidelines are adequate, provided that we seek consensus in applying them. As to the length of my responses, you can toss shit at a wall in a flash, and it takes far longer to clean it up. If the length bothers you, please don't read it, but you might also try not tossing shit. You are not obligated to read anything I write, unless it's a warning on your Talk page and it's brief. If you think something I write might be important, but it's too long, ask me or someone else to explain it to you more briefly. However, I do refuse to treat the Wikipedia community as consisting only of impatient and factionally-attached knee-jerk thinkers who want tight text only, so they can decide to oppose the editor or not, who don't understand the value of the extended discussion that is often necessary in finding consensus on difficult topics. If you think it's off-topic, you can always try deleting it and see what happens. You have as much right to your opinion as I do to mine, or do you disagree? --Abd (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Abd. However, I think Mathsci has a valid question. On this RfC, I'm asking JzG to abide by policy. If I understand the question about wikilawyering correctly, Mathsci wants to know whether I just want to enforce policy for the sake of enforcing policy (or for some ulterior motive), or whether there is good reason to enforce this policy in this situation. According to my reading of WP:WIARM, whenever someone wants to enforce a policy they should be prepared to explain why it makes sense to apply that policy in that situation (and not just "because it's the policy").

As an endorser but not a certifier, and as a writer of an "outside view", I believe that my participation here is not necessarily dependent on any involvement I may have in the situations. Any opinions I might have about lenr-canr.org are expressed in the discussion on the Martin Fleischmann talk page, that I gave a link to above.

The reason for administrative recusal is to ensure that decisions are made in a relatively neutral, objective fashion, so as to represent community consensus. Here we have IPs blocked, a page protected as a redirect, a blacklisting, a talk page that was deleted. I'm not convinced that these actions reflected community consensus or were what an uninvolved admin would have done. For example, the talk page was restored: that suggests that that the community didn't endorse the deletion. Redirects are normally not protected and I'm not convinced there's any reason such as frequent vandalism for it to continue to be protected. Wiki-editing thrives on freedom to edit. If the actions would not have been done by an uninvolved admin, then they shouldn't have been done. Had these actions been done by an uninvolved admin, any who oppose them might have been more accepting of them; or they might have felt freer to ask to have them reversed. There would have been a lot less time spent in discussion about whether the actions were proper or not. I think we can take it as obvious that the people using the IPs would have preferred not to be blocked; so there are clearly people opposing at least some of the actions.

So yes, I believe there are real reasons for enforcing the policy in this specific case, which are exactly in line with the reason the policy is there.

I feel strongly that we do better, in general, if we follow processes. For example, we calmly post our votes in AfD and abide by the result, whatever it is, even if we personally disagree with it. It wouldn't work well to allow deletionist admins to just delete whatever they personally believe should be deleted. I want to see NPOV in the cold fusion articles supported by consensus-building processes, not summary decisions by one individual.

It wouldn't be a good idea to decide RfCs like this based on who has more friends, or based on which side of an underlying content dispute has more supporters. The question about use of admin tools while involved needs to be addressed directly. The policy is there for a reason, and that reason is the same reason I'm endorsing this RfC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re summarizing: you're welcome, Abd, and thanks for confirming whether I had summarized accurately. If anyone ever finds that Abd's posts on any topic are too long, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll probably be happy to provide a summary. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone have to do that? I've never heard of such a thing in all my time on Wikipedia. You doubtless mean well, but in doing so you are acting as his enabler. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is helpful to shift the focus of this RFC to Abd. If you recognize that not every editor is a tech savvy 20-something, and apply a bit of patience and understanding, it is quite easy to get along with Abd. Let's try to stop the inflammatory remarks on both sides of this conflict. Though Guy can be somewhat abrasive, he has good intentions and is right much more often than not. We should try to reduce the conflict and help people get along. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jehochman. I've said it, how many times? The RfC does not claim bad faith. It does not claim that JzG is "wrong" in the specific results of his actions. That question might come up in an RfAr, because ArbComm will be interested in it when determining sanctions. But it's really irrelevant here. I've asked people, nominally supporting the RfC goal, to stop the attacks on JzG. Sometimes, when challenged on the value of this process, I've mentioned the other factors, the reasons why some editors have, indeed, developed an aversion to JzG; it's true, I would not file this if I did not believe that some of the actions were, in fact, disruptive, and the position that JzG was sustained in the actions is a gross oversimplification at best, and resolving that will involve quite a bit of process that has not taken place. To avoid disruption, some of the actions have not been seriously challenged yet, beyond initial process, even though there is substantial disagreement. As can be seen at Martin Fleischmann, JzG has taken action (in the blacklisting matter) justified by a series of arguments, and some of those arguments have been clearly rejected, and others simply were not resolved there because they were moot. None of the arguments have been sustained by consensus. The crucial issue of admin use of tools while involved takes precedence, and it should be simple and clear. It's not, because, I suspect, of POV factionalism, the same factionalism that made it take so long to address the problems with a well-known anti-fringe editor. --Abd (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." I haven't been 20-something for years. Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"May" does not equate to "should". If you want to discuss Abd's behavior open and RfC on him. This RfC is focused on JzGs use of administrative tools while involved in a content dispute. --GoRight (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this RfC is focused on Abd beating dead horses, actually. Hipocrite (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those who certified this RfC seem to be focused more on the former than the latter. You appear to be simply trying to obfuscate the point. I have no idea what your motive for doing so may be, but obfuscation does seem to be your goal. --GoRight (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm confused about how RFC's work then. Is there an exception from WP:OWN for people who certify RFC's? I think Abd's abuse of JzG is far more damaging to the encyclopedia than the blacklisting of one fringy-mc-fringerson site ages ago in an action that was already blessed by the community at large. Apparently, almost everyone else agrees with me. Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, if in a deletion discussion one-third of the people vote "delete" and two-thirds vote "keep", would you take that as an indication that the person who nominated the article for deletion should be banned? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the circumstances of the vote and the reason for the discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this RfC has reached a critical point where it can go one of two ways. If it is part of a dispute resolution process then it needs to broaden its remits an look at all involved parties. If, on the other hand, it is purely about JzG's uses of admin privilages with respect to cold fusion, then I think everything has already been said and there is little to be gained in keeping the RfC open any longer and we should move to close.--Salix (talk): 22:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have, at this point, no objection to a rapid close, and I agree that major new arguments are unlikely to appear. What could happen, though, is that JzG's friends start to smell the coffee and realize that a close now -- no matter what conclusion arises -- will take this quickly to ArbComm, giving them less time to head off the desysopping of JzG by persuading him to admit the obvious. I'm indifferent. I don't know what close is best, and if one of the positive outcomes, in my view (JzG simply acknowledging error is a positive outcome), doesn't happen, I'd probably lean toward a speedy close as "no consensus, go to Arbcomm" like the last RfC, or "JzG did nothing wrong and Abd should go fly a kite," or whatever, it does not matter. If the community reprimands me, I'll certainly consider it, and will not act contrary to consensus (beyond exercising my right to appeal), but please understand I've been thinking about this issue for more than three months, nothing here is a surprise. Except Beetstra's comments about me, which I assume will be resolved as issues between him and I have always been resolved so far, direct discussion. --Abd (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about you wake up and and realise that most uninvolved people think your actions are disruptive and that you are beating a dead horse? Please confirm that you are serious about closing this RFC and we can see about finding a 'crat to work out where the consensus sits? OK? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus. There are three sets of editors, more or less, with some outliers. An RfC seeks consensus on the issue raised, not on irrelevancies. Numbers don't count, and this is not a process to remove JzG's admin bit, so why a bureaucrat? But maybe there is some tradition on that. Very few arguments have defended JzG on the merits. The large majority of editors I see attacking me and others supporting the RfC claims, instead of addressing the merits, are or have been in conflict with me. It was already clear from the beginning that JzG was popular, I have no idea how many commenting are "neutral," i.e., have no prior opinions. I know that I'm unfamiliar with many names supporting the RfC, but I certainly can't tell about prior history with JzG. I am indifferent as to whether this closes quickly or not, so I'd prefer to allow others to make that decision. Unless a closer pulls a rabbit out of a hat, you do know, Spartaz, what will ensue, it's not like it is some secret and will be a big shock. --Abd (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read, specifically the blacklisting 'debate' on meta and on en.wiki it seems that JzG failed to recuse himself, failed to properly account his involvement and failed to provide actual proof of actions (such as link spamming) which he used as reasons for why his desired outcome should be realized. In many of the debates he used his status as admin and winning personality to garner support, not factual policy and evidence based argumentation. He also seems unwilling to accept that this is what happened, he seems throughly unapologetic about his method of getting results and offers no promise or inclination to refrain from such tactics in the future, nor to revisit the artifacts of his failures in order to make amends or remove doubts as to their authenticity. The repeated and aggressive deflections constitute a conscious failure to address these matters and deserves attention. Unomi (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does JzG have to do to adress your concerns, exactly? He's already stated "I have completely disengaged form Abd and his silly crusade on behalf of lenr-canr.org." You're saying that because he's trusted and popular he's not allowed to disagree with you? That's beyond. Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure how you can equate 'complete disengagement' with addressing concerns. Wikipedia behavioral guidelines on disruptive behavior states clearly that 'resists moderation and/or requests for comment' is a mark of a problematic editor. This is compounded by the fact that he is an admin, and some of his actions are not easily undone, simply because of the desire to avoid drama. JzG, in my opinion, needs to revisit the artifacts of his actions and be open to discussing them. I am not aware that he has disagreed with me, I have had no involvement in any of the events that have brought us here. I saw the MfD, read the views and diffs and could not help but go 'wtf'. From my perspective this has nothing to do with the relative merits of lenr-canr.org, this has to do with the repeated, seemingly conscious, decisions to fail to honor wikipedia policy and guidelines. Unomi (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How is complete disengagement not fully adressing concerns? "I don't like how you dealt with blacklisting this website." "Ok, I'll never deal with that website again." Unless you see More than one bad blacklist here. I mean, I know you don't, because the only actions commented on in this whole RFC are about one website. Which he's no longer dealing with. Perhaps you could wait and see if he does anything wrong about some other website, no, before you decide that blacklisting one website is as bad as User:Archtransit. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that you refer to the lenr-canr.org blacklisting as bad. I fail to see how not making more bad blacklistings , should that be the case, is a resolution to having been involved in making one previously, one which still stands. I don't see the relevance of User:Archtransit here. Unomi (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JzG is not required to respond. But he's an administrator. He has special privileges, the possession of which brings certain responsibilities. If he does not respond, the community, once it becomes aware of the situation in a focused way, which you seem determined to prevent, will not allow him to continue with those privileges unless he assures it, effectively, that he will not abuse them again. It's that simple. He's completely allowed to disagree. His disengagement from me has nothing to do with the actions themselves, most of them occurred while there was no dispute at all between us. I was simply one who noticed the actions and asked him to reverse them or recuse himself, as did others. Have you actually read the RfC, Hipocrite? Maybe you should. --Abd (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every tortured word. It's all about him blacklisting one website and banning one disruptive editor. Sorry, that does not demonstrate a pattern of anything. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you did, you didn't retain it. It's quite brief, actually, and if anything there is incorrect, I'd appreciate notice. Nobody has challenged any of it. Two websites, not one. And two editors, not one. And the intended blocked editor wasn't actually disruptive, but that's complicated. Talk page edits only, easy to deal with. Expert, published author in the field, well-known. Experts are often quite opinionated, and we need to learn to deal with them better. He'd been insulted by JzG for years, so consider that in setting standards for his behavior. And this is just one article. Is it typical? I don't know, but I have indications it's not. In any case, suppose there were only one example of admin violation of rules regarding involvement. Suppose the admin can't understand it, rejects attempts to resolve it with incivility or stonewalling. He's warned on his Talk page by multiple editors, and he's publicly warned before ArbComm, with no contrary opinion expressed (kind of like here). Is this serious? Damn straight it is! It means that he doesn't understand administrative recusal, which is fundamental, plus he does not understand dispute resolution, which are fatal flaws in an administrator. If the weight of this becomes relevant, say at ArbComm, then there may be collection of evidence on a wider scale. This RfC was just about one narrow set of actions, a small fraction of his work. This RfC does not make a decision about desysopping, the question has not been asked. (But the admin bit is mentioned in "desired outcome," however, that would depend, here, on voluntary cooperation from JzG.) "Pattern" has not been alleged, either. Maybe, Hipocrite, you should start looking at the actual questions instead of assumed goals and results that you don't like. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Rothwell is not an "expert", he's a guy with a website. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your bias is showing, Enric. He's a published author and translator, he's widely recognized, works closely with Storms, translated Mizuno, the web site is notable, widely used for references in peer-reviewed literature, and on and on. He knows the field thoroughly, though he's a writer and editor by profession, not a scientist as such, and he's opinionated. If I'm correct, he's done a lot of editing of conference papers for the Chinese publications, and, he's fluent in Japanese, which gives him access to the voluminous published material in Japanese journals about low energy nuclear reactions. Tell you what. I intend to put up articles on Rothwell, lenr-canr.org, Krivit, and newenergytimes.com. I'll let you know when I do so you can try to get them deleted if you think them inadequately sourced. Fair enough? Indeed, my point isn't that Rothwell is an expert, but that he could be, it is a reasonable assertion, and only this "fringe" nonsense gets in the way. Say, if you like, that he's an expert on a fringe topic, and, for example, he knows a great deal more about it than you do. Do you disagree? I didn't call him a "neutral expert," though I'm not sure I know any of those. Experts tend to have opinions (which aren't always correct, but at least they are informed). --Abd (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's still not an "expert". He has no degree on Physics or Chemistry, he has only published as co-author, and has published only in fringe journals of cold fusion's walled garden. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on views[edit]

Comment on Jehochman's view[edit]

I'm not sure that anyone is specifically asking JzG to apologize, but I don't think that asking him to acknowledge concerns about his behavior is unreasonable. Take, for example, how he responded to notifications about this RfC:

• (to ABD) "I am seriously wondering if you are on the autistic spectrum"
• "Tobias, the perennial gadfly and borderline troll, a perfect example of the kind of people Abd has on is side"
• "the problem is Abd and there's no way Abd is ever going to realise it".

Anyone else sense a problem with JzG's reaction to feedback via dispute resolution? I do. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing this summary:

1. Abd (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Acknowledgment of the error has been crucial in the past to ArbComm "forgiving" admin action while involved.[reply]
2. This much is entirely valid. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The latter two points are wholly valid; the first would best have been left unsaid. The third point is a defensible position (in fact it represents the majority of respondents to this RfC) and is not even borderline uncivil, so I'm hard pressed to see why it's included here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this section had a subheader, it was within Cla68's comment section, and was proper there. It's his extended comment. Because SMHB responded here, I'm leaving this here, so his response has context, but am replacing what was proper there, back where it was. Please do not edit the comment sections of another editor except to add or modify an endorsement. --Abd (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, could you restore the original Desired Outcome, and then strikethrough any text being changed and emphasize any text added? That way my Outside View will make sense to new arrivals. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll check that. --Abd (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Done. --Abd (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find rather bizarre the idea that apologizing is some sort of humiliation. A little humility is no humiliation. Dlabtot (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But editors and administrators are volunteers, and it's enough that the project is protected, ongoing. Apologizing to specific editors could, indeed, be humiliating (Rothwell, for example, is quite caustic and I wouldn't blame JzG for disliking him, though I do think he should consider the extent to which he may have contributed to the bad situation); voluntarily admitting error should not *ever* be humiliating. Now, what the "desired outcome" is could still state apology as a desired outcome, and nothing this RfC can force JzG to do anything (nor, in fact, can ArbComm coerce), but I also need to respect what other editors request. Since the admission of error and assurance that it won't repeat is enough, I took it out at Jehochman's request. Editors are not slaves, and we cannot demand that they do anything, but we can demand that they stop doing something that causes damage. --Abd (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get a sense that things will go better if you respond to concerns. It is unfortunate and understandable that you don't have much trust for Abd, but don't discount the concerns because of the messenger. If you acknowledged that the blacklisting was outside normal process and undertake not to do anything like that again, and also to follow the good advice of Fritzpoll, I think the outcome will be better. If this matter goes to arbitration, the Committee is likely to do something draconian. Regrettably, only a minority of the present Committee have been active in the trenches against trolls and sock puppets. You are unlikely to get much sympathy from them. Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jehochman. I hope that JzG will listen, because, while I don't quite agree with your analysis of why ArbComm is likely to act, I do agree with your intention and substance, and my goal has never been to deprive the project of JzG's helpful contributions. Rather, from day one of my involvement in the beginning of January, it has been to point out to him the issue of administrative recusal, which is a fundamental policy, not just some detail, and to stop the behavior, which I consider damaging to the project. There are other problems, to be sure, but it all pales in significance compared to admin recusal, which is one reason why content aspects of his actions have often been set aside and the actions not seriously challenged by me. We can deal with the alleged elephant poop after we get the elephant out of the living room and into proper quarters for him, or, if we need an elephant in the living room, we make sure he's housebroken. First things first. A major point of admin recusal is to not have to have debates like this RfC. We should be, instead, discussing and making decisions about content. --Abd (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the situation is that you have a valid point, but that Guy will not view your involvement as a good faith attempt at dispute resolution (though I am others do). Perceptions matter. If you give Guy more space, and if parties whom Guy trusts will work with him, perhaps this could be resolved. It will be most unfortunate if ArbCom steps in with force when diplomacy can get a better result. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I really don't know. All I know is that it's my responsibility to, on the one hand, stand for the policy of admin recusal, which is a crucial one, and, on the other hand, allow JzG every opportunity to assure the community that he will comply with it. He's already had three months, JzG, and so have his supporters. It's not like the objections were invisible, and what was listed in the RfC filing was only a part of it. His Talk page, in various fora and before ArbComm. It's a bit late, but, sure, I'm certainly not pushing for this RfC to close, and, unless he starts acting up with his edits and actions, there is no emergency. "Give JzG space"? What space? I'm not posting to his Talk page, my policy, and I made an exception to notify him of this RfC. No, I'm not willing to stand on my head to "give JzG space," we have done that kind of thing far too much. He's responsible for his actions, he's an admin. If he was an ordinary editor, hey, you ask, I stop talking. On the other hand, I'm not trailing him around and going after him. This is just about admin recusal. It really should have be a matter of minutes, and if it wasn't, that probably indicates lack of qualification. We should not have to go to these lengths to persuade an admin to follow this basic policy. In other words, it may already be too late, unless he really shows a turn. I removed the desired outcome of apology, because it really isn't necessary, but ... that might be what it would take. Not forced. Genuine. I don't know if it is possible, and if it isn't possible, Jehochman, that, itself, proves the case for desysopping. I don't think you can or should make the quieting of a complaint to be a precondition for resolving it. Allowing him private space, fine. There is his Talk and there is what might be even better, email, or even better, someone could phone him if they know how to do it. In any case, thanks for trying. If several admins that he reasonably trusts start doing this, there is some possibility of resolution. --Abd (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the guidelines for RfC:

An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information.

Some editors seem to be laboring under the assumption that this RfC could determine a topic ban on me, for example. I've seen it done, in fact, but there are good reasons for the above restriction, and ignoring them is problematic. It is very clear that there are substantial numbers of editors willing to immediately !vote for my ban; however, this RfC was not designed to examine my behavior, nor is it a place where I can properly defend my behavior, and I have discouraged others from defending it here in detail, it is off-topic. If my behavior has been improper, in spite of all my precautions, following WP:DR would be in order and the first steps are not RfC. I attempted to follow pre-RfC steps with JzG, and that was unsuccessful, but I wasn't done, I'd have continued to try to find some appropriate helpful mediator with him, someone he would trust, and only the impending deletion of the evidence file (which would have made it difficult for others to follow the trail) forced the RfC. JzG had become quite inactive, so there was no rush. --Abd (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What it means is that sanctions cannot be imposed at RfC - however, sanctions can be imposed at a noticeboard, even while a RfC is ongoing or as a result of the concerns raised in the RfC. Usually it is discouraged so that RfC can find voluntary agreements between the party, but in some cases, it becomes the only way. Note, any member of the community can propose for sanctions to be imposed on you even in the absence of an RfC - it's not a requirement nor a necessity. That said, sometimes people insist on RfC prior to considering any sanctions. It's really a case-by-case thing, but rest assured, no sanctions can be imposed at RfC - if they are to be imposed, they require an admin noticeboard discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, completely. However, with respect to me, even going to a noticeboard would be premature, in my opinion, because I've stated on my Talk page that any admin can state a topic ban for me, either specific or site-wide (excepting my Talk page) and I would treat it as if I were blocked with respect to what was banned. I would then, if I disagreed, appeal through normal process (i.e., the ban would not apply to appropriate appeal). In other words, I could take it to a noticeboard, for example, or seek mediation or any of the lesser remedies, or, in the other direction, directly to ArbComm. Probably none of these would be the first step. I follow WP:DR.

For the same reason, blocking me would be inappropriate as well. I have not been given specific warning, and specific warning would be required, there is no site-wide disruption on an immediate basis. If you are an admin, and you think I'm being disruptive, tell me to stop, and be specific. (Just saying "stop being disruptive" doesn't cut it, because it gives me no information as to what, specifically, I'm doing wrong, so that I know what to stop. Instead, "stop arguing at the JzG RfC or Talk for it" would be clear, and I would stop. Period. And then treat the admin as an involved party should it go to ArbComm. Many seem to think I'm out on a limb, that this is all silly. Okay, if that's true, then surely ArbComm would quickly dismiss any case I bring. But this isn't silly, I'm calling for us to follow policy, and there is very substantial support for this, quite enough to take this to ArbComm, and unless editors start actually trying to find consensus here, or JzG smells the coffee, instead of staking out positions in some battlefield, that is quite where it will go, and the only question is when. Block or ban me, and it's possibly immediate. I really don't know what's best, I'm just saying what I see. It's up to the community. --Abd (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs aren't here to impose limitations on Wikipedians. Durova^Charge! 17:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been one call for a closing of this RfC. However, on consideration, the process here is incomplete. There are no "findings" proposed by the community. We have lots of comments, some quite unfocused and off the topic, such as mentions of JzG's old incivility, my alleged disruption, etc. But not specific discussion of and !vote on findings. What I've seen in the past is that some conclusion is supported without regard to findings, and this is a formula for failure to find consensus. There are findings that are suggested by the RfC presentation; not presenting this allows predetermined conclusions to be made with no responsibility accruing to the editor supporting them.

There is no proposal here that JzG be desysopped or punished. There was no proposal that Abd be banned, and it would be inappropriate for me to use this RfC to defend myself. However, a finding that, for example, there was no merit to the claims made in the RfC and that it was effectively harassment, would be on point, because that's about the RfC itself. I will set up sections below with specific proposed findings. Later, some specific recommendation should be made, but this is not to be Alice in Wonderland and the court of the Queen of Hearts, with verdict first, trial later, even though Carroll was referring to, and skewering, our common habits.

Obviously, anyone can propose a finding, mine are just my suggestions; for efficiency, if someone else proposes a better finding, one more likely to broaden consensus, I will act as a caretaker for any finding I propose, and expect to merge it with one I see as an improvement, if such arises. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, I've reverted your bold edits. This is not a venue where you "vote" on sanctions, findings, or anything of that sort. It is a venue for discussion, outside views, and making voluntary agreements among parties. Please read the RfC instructions and guidelines. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. However, I also reverted one more of these matters to find consensus on, since NCMV objects to the process. I'm asking for findings, and that's appropriate, and it can facilitate consensus, but, hey, have it your way, this can all be resolved at ArbComm if we don't come up with something better. No sanctions were going to be proposed, just a review of the facts, so we can set aside what we agree on and quiet contention on it. That's consensus process. If the goal is not consensus, but victory, well, that's something else. This was a Talk page, NCMV, you are removing discussion. I'm not going to revert you; instead, I'll allow you to be responsible for your actions.

NCMV, if this is a "forum for making voluntary agreements among parties," that's quite what I thought it was. I was proposing agreements. Very narrow specific ones. Got a better idea? --Abd (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you fail to understand the spirit of RfC. Voluntary agreements among parties consist like "I will not edit on certain articles", and "I will not use my tools on editors on a particular article". Not "User edited disruptively" and "User used tools inappropriately". It does not involve the community making adverse or even positive findings of fact - that's what the main page exists for, through views and endorsements. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common RfC practice is probably inadequate to resolve the dispute here. The findings I proposed, none of them were conclusions like what NCMV described, which are complex judgments. Views and endorsements are great, but it seems that NCMV wants RfC to be confined to a single opinion of a closer, and not more sophisticated process. That's guaranteed, I'd suggest, to take this all to ArbComm. If the community makes clear findings of fact, I'd predict that JzG will have, at least, a chance to head off the ArbComm filing. Nothing I was proposing as a finding was actually controversial. For the dispute to be resolved, JzG will have to take some steps, I don't see any possibility that the community here, without his cooperation, could resolve this, beyond simply making fact and policy clear to him. I haven't seen any disagreement of substance with the findings I proposed, that's why I started there. I am not thrilled about NCMV's removal of Talk page discussion, because it was a form of that, but I recuse myself from making any decision about it. Your move, community, and thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That post stepped outside normal RfC practice. We're here to discuss, not vote. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It did step outside. However, the proposal wasn't to make any decision by vote, but to poll on the specific questions raised by the RfC, because the spread-out and contentious comment process on the project page doesn't allow sensing consensus on those questions because huge amounts of irrelevancies have been introduced (on both sides). If the response was overwhelming on a question, we'd have consensus on that question, and could then focus on where we don't agree. Durova, this is standard consensus process, it's known to work even in the presence of deep contention. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not standard at RfC. Heads in a direction I'd rather not tread. Durova^Charge! 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. If the community does not want to seek consensus, by whatever means, it is unlikely to find it dropped on them from heaven, and this will end up at ArbComm. I proposed a method, if several editors oppose it and there isn't at least some more substantial argument in favor of it, it would be useless. Dead horse, as some are fond of calling things. Maybe something better would work. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 April 2009

I oppose this edit by Ncmvocalist which removed Abd's findings of fact headings. This talk page is for discussion, and I consider what Abd posted to have been discussion. He was asking questions and polling for responses from the community, as is often done on talk pages, with the purpose of clarifying issues and finding consensus.

I think it's pretty clear what the result of the polls would be. The facts in this situation are clear. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd advised me on my talk page ( cut and pasted here) to remove these comments, so I will trust his judgement, and move my comments to the talk page. Maybe these edit diffs will finally be helpful for the editors in RfC JzG5. My apologies to anyone who endorsed my comments, as I am moving your endorsement here.

Outside view by Ikip[edit]

Ikip (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your advice to Guy to let another admin handle situations where there is likely to be a perception of involvement. (Preferably, I would add, via a noticeboard, for transparency and neutrality.)

I disagree with your statement "since the community has time and again validated them." At least two of Guy's admin actions while involved, listed on this RfC, have been overturned:

• JzG's deletion of Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science was reversed about a month later, as shown in the log.
• Guy's edit to the blacklisting page was reversed here: [33] which removed lenr-canr.org from the blacklisting, (and it is still not in the list now), and the website is currently being used in an article (Martin Fleischmann) to provide a convenience copy for a publication which is listed in that article.

For the other actions, I'm not aware of any community process that has validated any of them. (I'm not claiming there is not; I just don't remember at the moment seeing any such.) A rejected arbitration request is not a definitive decision about anything. A discussion at AN/I which doesn't reach any particular conclusion may not necessarily be a validation of anything. I haven't found any discussion with a name like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cold fusion/wip or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cold fusion/tmp or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CMNS which would validate the deletions. Even if some have been validated, there are still the ones I mentioned above which were reversed.

Even if each action was individually validated as something that would have been done anyway by an uninvolved admin, I agree with Durova ([34]) that it would be dangerous to continue down that path. Absent emergencies, a single involved individual should not be trusting their own judgement as to what community consensus is for such decisions.

I see the situation like this: there are many people on this project who are uninvolved with cold fusion, and the admins among them may be unwilling or uninterested in either performing actions such as JzG did, or in reversing them once they've been performed: especially since wheelwarring is discouraged. Among those involved in cold fusion, there are editors on two sides of a dispute (which could perhaps be described as essentially inclusionism versus deletionism), and one of these editors is an admin (JzG) who has been using admin tools to further one side of the dispute. This sets up a situation in which one side of the dispute has an unfair advantage – especially when the admin is on the deletionism side ("I am still, of course, a deletionist at heart"[35]). That situation is what needs to stop, in my opinion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, Copper, you should link to the page log, where you can see the deletions and restorations [36] --Enric Naval (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lenr-canr.org blacklisting was not reversed. It was removed from the local blacklist because it had been globally blacklisted on JzG application, which is one of the cans of worms opened in this investigation. Admins at meta are making content decisions for us, and they are not even, apparently, within the jurisdiction of ArbComm. (There was no linkspam even alleged at a level that would justify blacklisting, which is an extreme measure as designed.) One link is whitelisted, more probably will be, and, I predict, eventually the site will be whitelisted here in toto. Only after that happens do I consider it likely that meta will delist.

What can be said about the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org is that a series of reasons were given for blacklisting; when those reasons were examined at Talk:Martin Fleischmann, they were rejected by consensus, though the discussion was seeking a specific decision for a specific article of a specific page at lenr-canr.org. --Abd (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, but I still consider the lenr-canr edit to have been overturned. The whitelisting essentially overturned the blacklisting; and the discussion you mention shows consensus for using the link, with arguments that generally have nothing to do with only using it in one specific article. At the very least: the edit was overturned insofar as its effects on that one article. If there were really reasons to blacklist it from other articles but keep it there, Guy could have arranged to have it whitelisted at the same time that it was blacklisted; otherwise, the effect was to remove it from that article for a period of time. That removal has been overturned. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone show any recent pattern of admin bit abuse, say within the last month or so? This RFC seems to focus on cold fusion issues from 2-3 months ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any. This RFC seems to be focused on bashing the subject for past misdeeds, well after he has disengaged. Skinwalker (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the blacklisting was upheld at Meta, the block was put up to the arbitration committee for review but Abd is still obsessed with this crusade and now threatening and arbitration. Can no one make this time-wasteing circus end? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I'm hesitant to recommend arbitration because Arbcom already is overworked and they don't need to waste their time on things like this. On the other hand, an arbitration case would provide a means for Abd's behavior to be dealt with. I'm out of hands for now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• JzG has been inactive. Because this RfC cannot determine sanctions, and because the issue is an unacknowledged violation of administrative policy, what is important here is whether or not the actions violated policy and whether or not they are reasonably likely to recur, a mere absence of recent admin abuse is insufficient to consider the matter resolved. If JzG were to acknowledge the violation, and show intention to refrain in the future, the matter would be resolved as far as I'm concerned.

• No appeal has been made of the block, there has been no unblock request, no AN report, only a premature appeal by JzG to RfAr for confirmation, which was rejected. Hence there is no determination of consensus on that matter. Lack of discussion and balanced consideration of evidence does not show consensus.

• To resolve the content and non-admin editorial behavior issues is very complex and community consensus difficult to obtain rapidly. But admin recusal is, in this case, a simple issue.

• The blacklisting of lenr-canr.org was not "upheld at meta," exactly. It was under discussion here, and possibly would not have been upheld, or, if upheld, would then have been appealed, but JzG went to meta and requested blacklisting there, not informing the admins there of the local discussion. With very little discussion and little apparent verification of the evidence he presented -- which was thin --, yes, the site was globally blacklisted.

• I put off appealing the blacklisting at meta, because I'm very unfamiliar with procedures there and if I can't get whitelisting of pages here, it is pointless to appeal to meta. To avoid disruption, I've been taking this very slowly, which does explain the delay, plus my own ADHD which can cause me to put something unpleasant off until it is absolutely necessary. There was an open call for JzG's friends to give him good advice on the matter. To my knowledge, until this RfC was filed, none attempted to do this.
• As to a rapid end to the circus, since all the major acts (i.e., arguments) have appeared, as far as I can tell, I would not oppose closing this RfC, given that it seems unlikely the community will find clear consensus here, for majority of endorsements is no indication of consensus, which is established through cogency of argument, and all or nearly all comments and endorsements either confirm the "charges," or ignore them and focus on content issues, claims of harassment of JzG, complaint about my lack of brevity, and other irrelevancies. If JzG has been harassed by myself, Durova, and others, then there are other remedies for that. To me, consensus is obvious, no comment directly contradicts it: JzG violated administrative policy and has indicated no intention to abstain; instead, in the few comments that addressed this issue, he claimed that he was not involved in the meaning of the policy, which is preposterous, given the evidence. However, I am not moving for close, since JzG's friends may be working with deliberate speed, behind the scenes, to influence him to resolve this, which he could do in a matter of minutes.
• A few comments said something to the effect of "JzG did nothing wrong," but this opinion clearly contradicts policy; but what they mean, I infer, was that the actions, had JzG not been an involved administrator, were harmless or beneficial. However, failure to recuse when involved is itself harmful, because it creates resentment and disruption. That is why it's policy and not merely some weak advice. Further, I do not agree that the actions were harmless, but have postponed dealing with them until the much more important issue of admin recusal is resolved. Some of them are moot now, such as the IP blocks of the wrong editor.
• I have further refrained from comment here for the last day or two, and, indeed from most editing of the project, not only because of personal business necessities, but also because Jehochman and others requested that I refrain from making it more difficult for JzG to resolve this by repeated comment. I'm only responding here because I respect Rlevse and his questions deserve answers, and I regret it if this complicates efforts at resolution. My goal has never been to "bash" JzG, but to clearly enforce admin recusal by the minimally disruptive method available to me: following [[WP:DR]. As "bashing" appeared, I intervened here to persuade editors who might be carrying grudges against JzG to refactor comments about his alleged general misbehavior, and dredging up a very unpleasant past, because it is irrelevant here. This RfC was solely about admin recusal; to establish involvement, it was necessary to show his history, and some of that history shows various non-admin offenses, but these are only relevant for that limited purpose. --Abd (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, Rlevse, that a response to your question can be summarized as follows:

I hope that clears things up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JzG claims to have disengaged, but has not. In this RfC, the certifiers are explicitly asking JzG to reverse certain admin actions or to consent to their reversal by any administrator. Many of those admin actions still stand and their effects have to be contended with by users. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that most of the actions have been community endorsed. Any admin can reverse him if they want; they have not, despite Abd raising his voluminous complaints in multiple forums, including ANI, MfD, article talk, blacklist pages, user talk, whitelist pages, RfAr, etc, etc. Most of JzG's actions are no longer JzG's, they have been endorsed both implicitly and explicitly by the community. Yet Abd keeps lashing that horse, as if we are a bureacracy. (BIG HINT: We're not)

Frankly, I'm more concerned about Abd calling the thoughts of 28 editors "irrelevancies" above, as if Abd is the only one who gets what's relevant in this dispute or RfC and how policy relates to actions. I'm surprised that you're supporting such flagrant disrespect for the community, especially when it's part of a pattern of behavior. Phil153 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the way I read the Desired Outcomes is that Abd (and the other certifiers, apparently) are attempting to bludgeon JzG with process. It's a threat — Do what I want, or you'll be desysopped. Since everyone else seems to recognize that Abd's bluster is simply that, I'm not surprised that JzG has disengaged from this (abuse of) process.

It seems quite plain that there is no consensus developing from this RfC that JzG needs to do anything else on the issues raised, and there's been no evidence presented that he's come anywhere near the articles or areas in question for some time.

If there are specific administrative tasks which need to be carried out, you're free to request them in an appropriate forum. We have AN/I for that precise purpose. A request there will be heard by a broad cross-section of admins, and a decision rendered rapidly. (Oh...wait...the issues raised in this RfC have already be heard in a multitude of forums....) There's no useful purpose served by hounding JzG here. None.

If anyone still believes that there is a dispute which requires resolution – or if anyone actually believes that this nonsense is really in the spirit of WP:DR – go take it to the next level. WP:ArbCom is thataway. Shit or get off the pot. (Though I recommend a visit to de minimis non curat lex first — the Arbs are generally quite good about smacking down frivolous, pointless, timewasting requests.)

I'm taking this ridiculous exercise off my watchlist. Do let me know if anyone ever gets around to making a serious request at AN/I or ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember, ToAT. This RfC was filed because it was demanded, see the MfD for an evidence page ref'd in the RfC. It appears that you are similarly making the demand, and that, if it is not filed, you would assume that there was no serious policy violation. I'm a bit concerned about administrators who have taken that position, so, what do you think? Should we include such administrators in the arbitration, or would that get too complicated? One question: in what forum was the issue of administrative recusal heard, other than JzG Talk, as described in the RfC? That is the only issue I have raised here. --Abd (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC was filed because you chose to file it. End of story. At least take responsibility for it. Filing an RfC is a serious step, and you're claiming here and elsewhere that you didn't want to, but did it to save your /JzG subpage. That's a very strange and frivolous rationale for filing an RfC. Phil153 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I said. I'm responsible for this RfC. JzG subpage was deleted, not worth fussing over. The timing however, was forced. Again, not worth arguing over. --Abd (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a disconnect between statements and evidence. On your talk page, you say: The MfD essentially forced this and The MfD for this page was very strange, because by filing it, JzG essentially forced me to file the RfC. and But I was trying to avoid an RfC; given this MfD, that's probably impossible now. Above you say, This RfC was filed becaues it was demanded.

You're claiming, multiple times, that the RfC was "forced" by the nomination of your /JzG page. Forced means "has to happen", "out of your control". Even coppertwig repeats it because you've said it so many times. I want to be absolutely clear that this very much was in your control and your continuation of this dispute is entirely your choice and your doing. It was neither forced nor demanded by anyone except yourself. Neither is Arbcom, should you chose to continue the dispute. Phil153 (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil153, please provide diffs to support your statement "Except that most of the actions have been community endorsed". Also please note that I would like administrators to follow the policy consistently (allowing for exceptions under IAR when there is good reason for such, such as emergencies), not just carry out admin actions when involved and justify that on the grounds that some, most or all of them are later endorsed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets go through the complaints in the RfC. Most of these issues have been raised multiple times by Abd in multiple forums, and have had many eyes look at them:

• The page protections (most are over a year old!) still stand, with the exception of excessive IP protection on cold fusion.
• The deletions all stand (some are over a year old), with the exception of the CMNS talk one
• The blocking of Rothwell still stands, and in fact was taken over by another admin. Arbcom resoundingly endorsed it, despite Abd's claims. If you look at the comments, Sam says: In the event that it is not generally accepted to be an application of ignoring rules then I would propose a motion to give the topic ban the formal endorsement of the committee but at the moment I see no reason to engage in pointless procedure on an obvious decision. At least 6 of the Arbs agreed with the ban (i.e. per Sam, per Thatcher, per all the above), and were bemused that such an obvious thing should be brought to Arbcom. They were aware of JzG's involvement with the topic, thanks to Abd.
• That leaves the blacklisting. Numerous attempts and superfluous prose from Abd to undo the blacklisting of lenr-canr have failed. In other words, the action has been viewed by multiple uninvolved admins, even in the face of a zealous pleader bringing the issue to multiple areas (including ANI), and it has stood.

Again, I remind you that we are not a bureacracy. If something needs to be done to protect the encyclopedia from rampant POV pushers that bring the same battle as Arbcom topic banned users, and no one else is stepping up the task for ages, it is perfectly fine for an admin with the appearance of involvement to do it. This is not a heated dispute about JzG's home country, or his town or his religion or his field of expertise; to my knowledge he had previously not edited prior to there being severe problems with POV pushing. At what point does a neutral admin familiar with complex behavioral issues that no one wants to deal with, become "involved" and have to recuse?

It's important to realize that JzG has no investment in this; unlike Jed (who's spent his life advocating for cold fusion, and has a strong investment in this), he's simply trying to protect the encyclopedia from fringe pushing and extreme disruption. The only emotional investment is that aligned with Wikipedia's interests.

The fact that actions are later endorsed is not a justification, as you note, but it does make the complaints frivolous. Again, we are not a bureacracy. If we were, the endorsements would be very different. The community decides on the merits of each case, and the community is speaking very loudly here to Abd, who appears not to want to listen. Note that the only person raising this issue has been Abd, who has a fringe friendly view of cold fusion, talks to JedRothwell off wiki, and has written hundreds of kilobytes on cold fusion talk (see Abd's talk page for image) advocating in a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT manner against the current consensus version of the article. In contrast, the community has looked at JzG's actions and appears not to see JzG's actions as a problem, to the point of finding Abd's continued raising of them as worthy of sanction. Phil153 (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one complaint in this RfC: JzG was involved with Cold fusion and took admin action with respect to the article and related topics and editors, contrary to policy. That complaint was not raised as an issue to be decided in any other forum than JzG Talk or here, It was peripherally related to other issues, which have been decided various ways, most not conclusively. I'd be happy to deconstruct Phil153's highly misleading summary, it's full of errors and blatant misrepresentations, but not here, where it is irrelevant. Phil will have his chance before ArbComm, if he dares to try to raise this smokescreen again, where his deceptive analysis will not pass unexamined. 'nuff said, if not even too much. --Abd (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, attacking Abd for using the dispute resolution process correctly is unproductive. The dispute resolution process is there for editors to use, it's their right. Abd, please don't threaten to take others to ArbCom. Feel free to make a request for arbitration, but please don't threaten to do so. Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Cla68, I think I wasn't clear. Some editors have started to express a welcome for an RfAr because then my behavior could be examined, and I was referring to comments he might make in that event, along the lines of those he made here. I have no intention of dragging Phil153 before ArbComm. You might notice that an RfC would be required first, and before that an attempt to resolve the dispute on his Talk page, and I see nothing here worthy of that kind of effort. As to my intention re ArbComm, I have not gone to ArbComm because I'm still hoping that this matter can be resolved short of that, and I've expressed how in many places; but I would not want to allow the illusion to appear that by stonewalling the issue here, it will be resolved merely because there are more !votes in a certain direction. It won't. --Abd (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Abd: Claiming that 28 editors expressing their opinion on this dispute are "stonewalling" is an assumption of bad faith on the part of those editors. Surely your can see that?

As for the rest, you said above:

There is only one complaint in this RfC: JzG was involved with Cold fusion and took admin action with respect to the article and related topics and editors, contrary to policy.

It's not that simple, I'm afraid. There are six prongs to this:

1. facts (did he act while involved?)
2. principles (all things considered, should he have?)
3. weight (how important is this?)
4. mitigations (IAR: was he acting in the best interests of WP? Was there good faith and poor execution? IAR exists for a reason)
5. remedies (should he reverse them? should he be desysopped? should nothing happen? should he be made to apologize for his perceived recalcitrance? Should we merely watch and take action if it happens again?)
6. procedural issues (is this a waste of everyone's time, brought with unclean hands, disruptive, or blown out of proportion?).

You keep asserting that only #1 matters, and #1 arguably passes the threshold of being a yes IMO (I've said so previously), but we are not a bureacracy that blindly compares facts to The Law. We're here to build an encyclopedia and a community, resolve disputes quickly, and resolve in favor of consensus, considering all of the above efficiently. We're not here to force admins into boxes and sometimes the community will endorse what you perceive to be an injustice. That's life.

For the record, I would actually support a summary which says "JzG was possibly over the threshold of involvement with cold fusion. He needs to show more care in future with regard to the appearance of acting while involved. No other remedies are required." That's about the depth of the genuine dispute at this stage. The rest, including the desired reversals, are issues to be brought up in the respective forums. I notice that you've done that and been mostly disagreed with, which weakens your complaints that these things were improper or that the involvement was bad enough to be reversed on principle. Phil153 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re threatening arbcom: oh, yeah, Cla68, good point, thanks. Personally I feel that if one is going to start a user-conduct RfC or go to arbcom, one should keep quiet about it until it's time, and then just do it. Otherwise it puts stress on the other party. You can tell them "please stop doing X". You can tell them "Stop doing X because it's against policy." You can tell them "stop doing X or you'll be blocked" (if appropriate!). But I don't think "stop doing X or I'll start an RfC" or "stop doing X or I'll go to arbcom" is helpful. (The difference with "stop or you'll be blocked" is that the person then knows that they probably had better stop; whereas with "stop or I'll go to RfC/arbcom" means we don't know yet what the decision will be so it doesn't give a clear message that the person needs to stop a behaviour.) I did warn a user before I started a user-conduct RfC, but that was with the intention of delaying it if it wasn't a convenient time for the user (which I may not have expressed clearly enough though); I was ready to start it immediately and did.

Re community endorsement: Phil153, I don't see any diffs in your reply. Yes, many of the actions still stand: that's part of the complaint. As I explained, that may be due to disinterest and avoidance of wheelwarring among other admins; I don't interpret it as representing endorsement of the actions. In any case, two (arguably one) of them have been overturned. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will seriously take at least an hour of work to provide diffs - since the complaints are so old (many of them over a year old!), I have to dig through old ANI threads. For example, Rothwell's ban was "obvious" to more than one arbitrator. The de-blacklisting of lenr-canr was declined, and no one seems to care much, despite MUCH noise from Abd all over Wikipedia. Involved CMNS protection (over a YEAR ago) was raised at least twice at ANI and no overturning of protection occurred, despite multiple uninvolved admins viewing it and commenting. Other issues gained consensus on talk pages. Diff will be forthcoming when I have a couple of hours free. Phil153 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The core of this complaint was took place 12/2008 - 1/2009: blacklisting of two web sites related to cold fusion, and blocking of two IP editors related to cold fusion edits. The other actions were listed as known examples of use of tools while involved, related to cold fusion, particularly deletion of Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science, and JzG stood aside, when I asked, and allowed that to be restored. But as to the rest, Phil153 cherry-picks actions where some semblance of immediate consensus existed. For example, Rothwell appeared obviously blockable, unless one looks carefully at the evidence and history. He was clearly banned by JzG because of his point of view, read the RfAr. It was an attempt to extend the Pcarbonn topic ban based on similarity of point of view, I can hardly imagine a more dangerous request. A link to the RfAR is in the present RfC, and also an examination of the comments there.

JzG has been very popular, and many are inclined to believe him and not check out his claims. However, what he wrote about the RfAr at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/JzG was false; Phil153 has been more careful, what he wrote above about it is not false, merely misleading. The RfAr was rejected, and that there were some arbitrators willing to give opinions before there was presentation of evidence was unfortunate. The block looked good, I'd say, until and unless one knows the underlying situation, which has never been presented in a forum where it was to be decided. However, JzG also blocked another IP editor that was not Rothwell; again, the reason is clear: the POV was considered to be like that of Rothwell. (JzG claimed it was Rothwell, but that was preposterous.) Rothwell is an expert, and, I'd suggest, if anyone reads as much of the field as he has -- he often edits the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science conference proceedings, besides his own book and many other writings, he translated Mizuno, knows Arata and other Japanese researchers, he has a copy of nearly everything ever published in the field, it's quite possible, maybe even likely, that the person will have a POV resembling Rothwell's as far as JzG would be able to tell. Remember, half the reviewers at the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review of low energy nuclear reactions considered the core excess heat evidence to be solid, and there is now deeper understanding of what happened over the last twenty years. So what JzG was trying to do with the blacklist was to exclude the two major web sites on the topic of cold fusion, and to ban or block the two most knowledgeable editors on the topic from even advising us. He succeeded with Pcarbonn, and, again, that hasn't been challenged because it would be disruptive and the issue of admin action while involved was much more important. Pcarbonn's fine, he's not suffering, we simply lost, for a limited period of time, a knowledgeable editor, who followed guidelines. I'm not about to tilt at windmills. Rothwell already confined himself to Talk page comments, often, unfortunately, acerbic. But cogent, and on-topic when it came to cold fusion, and very knowledgeable, he knows the sources, er, cold. Rothwell can advise as much as he wants without editing Wikipedia, but, in fact, he doesn't care a hoot about the Wikipedia article, he thinks Wikipedia is a total lost cause, which may have something to do with how he was treated. This is the "kook," a word which JzG just used again today, for those who think he's changed his spots.

Again, I did nothing about the non-Rothwell IP block itself, beyond pointing it out to JzG when I discovered it, because it's totally moot now, it's expired, and it wasn't a range block, the editor probably wouldn't come back the same IP anyway.

The delisting of lenr-canr.org was not declined here; in fact, the site was removed from the blacklist here. There was plenty of opinion that it wasn't proper. However, JzG went to meta, it's in the RfC. I've just written, on my Talk page, a detailed examination of the original meta blacklisting, which was pretty bad. Yes, it was then challenged there, and upheld. But that's meta. If you aren't concerned about meta administrators making content decisions for us, who are not familiar with the articles affected, I am, and so are others. The declared purpose of the blacklists, all of them, is to prevent linkspam. There was no linkspam. The argument JzG gave at meta was three-fold: "fringe," "copyvio," and "promotion by the owner," with "alters documents" tossed in for good measure. Fringe is not a valid reason for blacklisting. Copyvio is examined in the RfC, suffice it to say that this argument has been rejected by solid consensus. Promotion by the owner, if I thought that JzG knew what he was doing, I'd call a lie. There wasn't any promotion going on, and he presented no evidence. And "alters documents" was highly deceptive, see Talk:Martin Fleischmann for a detailed examination of most of the issues. What happened at meta is what JzG has done in many places: present a barrage of arguments that make a strong case, that falls apart if the arguments are examined in detail one by one.

But there was another web site blacklisted, and it's still blacklisted here, not at meta. The blacklisting was questioned, originally by Durova (mistakenly at meta. JzG blacklisted here without logging, violating the guideline, caused quite a bit of confusion at first). This is newenergytimes.com. There was, again, no linkspamming. There wasn't even a specific complaint or explanation except that it was stated by JzG in his retrospective "request" as being like lenr-canr.org. Delisting was refused by Beetstra, who has later acknowledged that the cross-wiki "spam" wasn't sufficient cause, and one might look at his comments in this RfC; but it was stated that if links are needed, the whitelist is available. Enric Naval actually did this with a lenr-canr.org link and it took weeks to get a single link into an article. It is utterly and totally impractical. Blacklisting is content exclusion, for most practical purposes, and the blacklist was designed to prevent linkspam and nothing else, and only linkspam that couldn't be prevented any other way. So I'm also beginning -- just beginning! -- to question what seems to have become fairly common: content arguments used to justify blacklisting. There is currently a delisting request for newenergytimes.com at the blacklist page: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#newenergytimes.com. I would have made several whitelisting requests, but by now, the issues are clear enough to go straight for the full monte.

The argument, though, that subsequent community acceptance of a particular action taken while involved, and excepting emergencies, excuses the failure to recuse is a very dangerous one, a very serious error, which cannot stand. But where the actions actually are controversial, and thus cause disruption, it is doubly moot. --Abd (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent JzG edit[edit]

(Summary of comment below:)

JzG has not disengaged. [37] He mentions edit-warring, which hadn't happened. More recently the only edit-warring about these links was JzG against the community.

Cold fusion and related articles would have many links to these two top websites on the topic if it weren't for JzG. It takes a lot of effort to whitelist. The blacklist should not be used for content control, other than linkspam, period.

It's our fault if we let JzG get away with things that the community doesn't support when it really examines them. He's not listening to his friends who are warning him he may lose his admin bit; I hope he'll start to listen. It's the community's fault for encouraging ScienceApologist and JzG to continue, leading to tragic results. Abd as summarized by Coppertwig 15:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tad concerned about this process of summarising Adb's comments - while I understand that Abd doesn't have a problem with it, it seems insulting to both Abd and other editors. Is it really necessary and/or appropriate? - Bilby (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How am I insulted if I don't mind? And how does it insult other editors? It's beyond me, frankly. But it's also irrelevant here, Bilby. It's permitted, that's clear. If I disagree with a summary, I'll point that out. I approve the summary above. Anyway, thanks Coppertwig, it's very nice what you are doing, and I hope others appreciate it, too, because I am a charter member of Onandon Anonymous. If you don't like the abstract, you really won't like the discussion itself. --Abd (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were insulted - just that it could be seen as insulting. That aside, the problem is the suggestion that we can't follow your posts, and thus someone else needs to come along afterwards and summarise them for us. Editors are intelligent people. If they choose not to read, that's their problem. But to suggest that they can't read, and thus need a summary, seems a tad iffy. Still, it isn't for me to decide how other people might respond, so I've made my comment and will happily let it sit. - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JzG is still defending his blacklisting of newenergytimes.com, see [38], in spite of his claims that he would stay away from the topic, cited here as evidence that this matter was old hat. "So we should deblacklist it even though it's a blatantly iunappropriate source for any article, so we can go back to having fringe kooks edit-war for inclusion all over the place. What a great idea, I wonder why I didn't think of that?"

There was no edit-warring going on when JzG removed the links and blacklisted, the only edit warring related to the two blacklistings, more recently, was JzG edit warring to keep the whitelisted link to lenr-canr.org out of Martin Fleischmann, and he was facing, not "fringe kooks," but User:Enric Naval, whom, you will note, has supported him in this RfC, and myself, and, ultimately, the rest of the community, since broad comment was attracted by my AN/I filing over his edit warring, and JzG's strong views, extended incivility, and passionate stubbornness, are not upheld by the community when carefully examined. He gets away with it for a time, and that, my friends, isn't his fault. It's ours.

There would be many links to these sites in Cold fusion and related articles, were it not for dedicated, long-term removal by JzG. We got one whitelisted, it took weeks, it took an extended informal RfC (i.e., detailed, focused discussion that broke down the issue into narrow questions) at Martin Fleischmann, many hours of work, but what was shown was that, indeed, at least one link from lenr-canr.org could be used, and the same arguments would apply to newenergytimes.com. These are the top two web sites on the internet focusing on low-energy nuclear reactions, widely cited as places to go to find information on the topic, including citations in reliable source, and they are more reliable than many sites which we routinely link to, see Beetstra's comments at the discussion cited above, who simply notes the obvious problem with balance, over which the sites are helpless because of differential abilities to obtain permissions, which relates to how links would be used, and the quantity of them. There is a better Fleischmann paper than the one we got whitelisted, for usage at the biography on the same issue, in place of the whitelisted one, but I'm not about to go through another month of effort for one small improvement. The blacklist should not be used for content control, other than linkspam, period, and I will stand with that, sticking my head up, until the community comes to agreement or ArbComm cuts it off with a decision (which would include a decline to review). JzG's friends have been trying to warn him that he may lose his bit at ArbComm over this, but he's not listening, and the only reason I've been waiting before going to the A/C is a hope that he will acknowledge the error at the urging of his sober supporters, the ones who are not encouraging him to go ahead of them on the tracks leading to the edge of the cliff, as they encouraged ScienceApologist. I blame the community, which means us, more than Science Apologist and JzG, both of whom can be damn fine editors or tireless workers, but who need proper guidance and restraint as well. I find no joy in SA's ban, and I will not be celebrating if JzG remains intransigent, due to all the "encouragement" here, and loses his bit. Both are (or will be) tragic. --Abd (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR Ikip (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight Abd started a discussion of removing newenergytimes.com from the spam blacklist on 11th.[39] JzG gave a short response a few days later. JzG did not use his sysop bit or break any other policy or guidline in this edit. The more I read the more this RfC is sounding like an RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. --Salix (talk): 17:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No claim was made here that JzG broke a "rule," at least not clearly. However, "kook" was part of his old history, that supposedly he left behind. This is the Talk page, the report from the blacklist page is not part of the RfC itself, but has to do with claims that JzG had "disengaged," for JzG had said he was going to stay away from cold fusion issues and from conflict with me, on his Talk, and that his disengagement made the RfC, even if technically correct, moot as old stuff. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd's comment provides counterevidence to JzG's response on this RfC, which says "I have completely disengaged form Abd and ... ".[40] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please! This is pathetic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, JzG might trust you enough that, if you explain the situation to him, he'd take the very simple action to resolve this. I think you are aware of what is highly likely to happen if he doesn't respond to assure the community that he won't use his tools while involved again; the assurance, to be effective, requires that he show he understands the problem, otherwise it would be merely abstract. If that's difficult for him, well, it should not be so difficult for anyone qualified to be an administrator: we all make mistakes, the big problem arises when we can't admit that when we are informed of the error, and blame others for being so bold as to point out what we did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 23:14 15 April 2009

Bilby: re summarizing Abd's comments, see [41] and [42]. I don't see why it would be taken as implying people can't read or understand the posts; it seems obvious that it's to save time. No offense is intended. Abstracts published in scientific journals are not insulting to the readers. It seems particularly strange to object in this particular case, where Ikip had explicitly said "TLDR": perhaps you hadn't noticed that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're using the wrong analogy there - abstracts are written by the author to say "this is what I wrote - read if interested" rather than to take the place of reading the article. Perhaps an executive summary is closer? That aside, I have no doubt you mean well, and it isn't for me to stop you - it just seems that "TL;DR" isn't a call for a summary, but a statement about the nature of the post. So it may not help those who complain, and it may not seem like the best move to those who don't. But that's your choice, I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of another editor following someone and writing summaries of what they say. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bilby, Ikip's comment was a reflection of his opinion that I don't condense what I write, and he thinks I should, I expect, from other comment. I'd guess that he actually did read it. But maybe I'm wrong. I like it, personally, very much, when someone summarizes what I've written, particularly when they do it well, as Coppertwig does. It shows that at least one user read it and undersood it. Some summarize and it's truly awful. It's happened right here on this page.--Abd (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus if it is a statement that Ikip would like you to condense what you write, having someone else condense it doesn't answer the problem as expressed, while with others it suggests the summariser believes that we're both willing to accept someone else's summary and that we need someone else's expertise in order to follow and/or understand what you say. I can't personally see it as a win on any level. While I'm happy to leave this - and shall - I remain personally uncomfortable with the process on a number of levels. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the first of the two diffs I provided above. I'm not convinced that it doesn't solve, or at least help solve, the problem. (Note that Abd has approved the summary [43].) You seem to be interpreting my action as implying things that I didn't say, didn't mean, didn't intend to imply and don't believe. Feel free to draw your own conclusions, but please don't attribute them to me. Also please feel free to discuss this further with me on my talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reassure you: in posting the summary, I made no assumptions about whether anyone would use it, how they would use it or whether anyone needed it. I simply thought that there was a possibility that some people might find it useful in some way. (As you've pointed out, there are at least two very different ways that such a summary might be useful.) The process of summarizing also helped me to understand and absorb the information myself. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I'm not attributing bad things to you. :) I am absolutely sure that you sumarise Abd's comments in good faith, in the intent to improve discussion. But good faith or not, the action leaves me very uncomfortable - it suggests things that you don't intend. Not the least of which is that we need someone to summarise Abd's comments for us. But it's your choice, it's Abd's choice to write in the style he chooses, and it is just my perspective on the situation. That aside, it shouldn't be the focus of this discussion - you're right that if we do discuss it, it should be elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New use of tools while involved.[edit]

This is a block of an IP editor which took place after the filing of this RfC.

81.156.251.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Contributions:

• 18:57, 7 April 2009 User talk:JzG ‎ (→Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3)
• 11:51, 5 April 2009 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 ‎ (→Other users who endorse this statement)

Block log: 19:30, 8 April 2009 JzG blocked 81.156.251.147 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Troll, WP:BATTLE. See http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=xSqVOxsAAACALntdCZhygj0p6wab60EGW0rZFdfcaar5x5y0kptMbA)

JzG also removed the comment of this IP editor from this RfC.
17:42, 5 April 2009 (→Other users who endorse this statement: nuxx bar is not entitled to a vote.)

JzG probably knows a great deal about this editor, and I don't. This notice here is not a complaint about the action, I doubt that the community would consider the action itself improper. Except for involvement. I do know administrators who would not take this kind of action, they consider it tool abuse, it doesn't matter that the editor deserved blocking -- if this one did, the edits themselves, without knowing the history (does JzG recognize the IP? or was that weird post diagnostic?), didn't make it obvious. If I noticed this block for another admin, though, I might scratch my head a little and probably would do nothing unless I knew some truly problematic history. Still, JzG's friends might point out to him that he's pushing the edges by using his tools when it isn't necessary, when he has other admins who have pretty much said, you tell me who to block, it's done.

I googled nuxx barr and found off-wiki connection with Guy, I saw a post by nuxx barr that was quite bitingly uncivil. I don't personally care if JzG blocked the troll, but I'd strongly advise him to avoid such, easy enough to get someone else to do it. I used to be trolled pretty often, it's simply not worth getting upset over. I'm not saying JzG was upset, but .... he just showed that he doesn't care about involvement rules, though in a relatively harmless way this time. And I'm dropping this now. --Abd (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add the links and a brief description of why you fell that this is problematic to the "Description" section in the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm not adding this to the RfC, which was focused narrowly, and I prefer to keep it that way. However, there has been other discussion here where this may be more relevant. I had some doubt about even putting this up at all. --Abd (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not adding this to the RFC then this does not belong here. This page is not a place to keep a laundry list of unrelated actions. This really is harrassment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite, Spartaz. Adding it would require response, and that could be harassment. It's related, all right. Nuxx bar seems to be involved in an outside conflict with JzG, but I don't know the history, perhaps there was a conflict here that spilled out, and in any case, JzG probably should have recused. You want laundry list? I acted to encourage editors to remove those lists, and they did. However, other instances of failure to recuse, I have no doubt, could be collected and added, does Spartaz want to see this? Further, if this goes to ArbComm, the recent action, undertaken while JzG was under clear notice of a problem with failure to recuse, probably would be included. But I would rather leave the focus in the RfC on specific actions with respect to a specific article. This block wasn't related to that, specifically, but it is related to failure to recuse, which is the ultimate issue. --Abd (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More process abuse by Abd... This section should be added or go. Verbal chat 11:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if its harrassment on the project page its harrassment here. You really are missing the point in the most spectacular fashion Abd. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's stay calm and not go flinging accusations of harrassment around. I have invited Abd to take action with these remarks at his talkpage, and I think it reasonable to give him time to respond. Those who are suggesting that Abd is pursuing JzG with excessive zeal would do best to examine how they pounce on everything that Abd says on this page. And this is from someone who isn't convinced of the need of this RfC per my outside view. Calm it down everyone - on both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzpoll (talk • contribs) 13:03, 16 April 2009

I'm sorry Fritzpoll, but I already asked Abd to remove it here and they declined so I hardly think that responding to their refusal can be construed is either impatient or particularly uncivil. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your plea fell on deaf ears anyway - hardly surprising given Abd's continuous refusal to listen to any views that fail to correspond to their's. This clearly will be going to either a communuty topic ban or arbitration anyway as Abd refusal to listen to wider community input leaves no other choices. I suggest that a) we archive this and move immediately to RFAR or b) take it to ANI for a topic ban as Abd'c continuous harrassment and wikilawyering have now gone beyond the pale. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this was a general remark to participants on the page and not directed at any specific individual. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to speedy close of the RfC, I've stated that before. I can't do it, I'm involved. If Spartaz does it, I would not object, though someone else might. Alternatively, there is nothing stopping anyone from going to ArbComm before this closes. They might accept the case, even if it's about my alleged harassment, because it's fairly obvious that lesser measures seem unlikely to resolve this. I've stated why I'm reluctant to do that, myself, before. --Abd (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks, Fritzpoll. I support your effort to quiet the matter, and I had no intention of pushing the point made in this section, but it is relevant here, and needs to remain. It would not be harassment to add this to the RfC, per se, except that it would have the effect of harassment, i.e., possibly requiring more response from JzG, without changing the nature of the RfC or its desired outcome. I would rather see JzG focus on what has been already raised, which is quite clear and not really controversial, it should have been easily resolved. I do not consider this block to be an emergency situation, though it is conceivable that with more knowledge, I would. This was added here for reasons I gave: it is a response to other comment on this Talk page claiming that there is no ongoing issue. My position is that "ongoing issue" wasn't the point in the RfC, that this "ongoing" argument has to do with determining sanctions, which isn't the goal here. But since other editors think it is important (a majority?), then the response, here, showing an ongoing issue, becomes appropriate. On the other hand, if a majority wants the issue added to the RfC, I would respect that, and I would make it a new section, dated so that it's clear that earlier responses did not consider it. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the new possible "block while involved" be moved to the RfC page?[edit]

I request you move this as a new section of the existing RfC in order to centralise discussion and debate on this topic. Since this is worthy of comment on this page in your opinion, there is no reason to retain it here in darker corners - if there is a problem to address, let us do it openly and afford other editors - including JzG - the opportunity to respond to the evidence that you portray. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections or agreement? (I can't move this whole discussion to the page, I would make it a new section as if it had been an appendix to the the original RfC, as I mention above, and this discussion would remain here.) If the RfC is closed before I do it, which probably cannot be before tonight, this becomes moot. --Abd (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be related to this RfC so I think it should simply be removed. Verbal chat 14:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is removed, then I suggest that Rlevse's question above, [44] as to whether there has been any recent admin abuse, and the answers to the effect that none has been seen, would also need to be removed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with moving the evidence to the RfC. It's definitely related to the RfC: the statement at the top of the RfC is that it is about use of tools while involved, and this is an example of such. Even if the RfC is not about all use of tools while involved, this particular use is closely related to this RfC. We can't assume that JzG is necessarily reading this talk page. To be fair to JzG, such evidence should be presented, if anywhere, where he has a reasonable chance of seeing it and responding, e.g. on his talk page or on the project page of this RfC. An alternative might be to leave the evidence here and put a link to it from the project page, though I'm not sure there would be any advantage to doing that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see one request from a relatively neutral admin to move it to the RfC page, one suggestion that it be deleted as not relevant, and one from Coppertwig, likewise that it be added as relevant. I'll make a decision by tonight, I expect, more comments are welcome and could help. Meanwhile, I have moved the whole section on this recent block to a subsection of Rlevse's question about recent actions, which it is a specific response to, to make context clear.--Abd (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see that its relevant to the RFC so keeping this is just wrong. An Rlevse is more concerned about looking for evidence of an ongoing pattern. One action does not a pattern make. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is combined with the presentation of the current evidence, I respectfully submit that, if interpreted that way, a trend could begin to emerge. If there is nothing to it, let Abd fall on his face trying to convince others otherwise (sorry, Abd - you know what I mean!) - move the thing to the main RfC page Fritzpoll (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent). Thanks, Fritzpoll. I like falling on my face, I had a roomie at Caltech who was a judo black belt and he taught me now to do it. There is a motion to close which has substantial approval and no opposition so far. If we are closing the RfC, there is no point in adding new material to it, since there would be no time for extended comment on it. Whatever is relevant here can be used later, if needed. I would oppose removal of the information about the recent block here, but, actually, it's moot. (I had become sympathetic to the idea of putting it in the RfC, but the closing process has overtaken that, and properly so.) I think we are done here, and I'm not seeing any serious disagreement on that. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking over, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DrKiernan and it appears like a common feature of RfC is a "Proposed solutions" section. The "Proposed solutions" section is not in this RfC. why? Ikip (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "Desired outcome" section. The community affirms that action while involved is improper, and confirms that JzG has done this. JzG assures the community that he recognizes the impropriety, and that such actions will not be repeated, and he himself reverses, or consents to the reversal of any of these actions still standing in effect, by any other administrator. Alternatively, he resigns his administrative privilege or it is removed by further process.

The only part of this that is a task for the community is the affirmation of impropriety of action while involved, and confirmation that this occurred. (Or, alternatively, impeachment of the evidence, which does not seem to have been attempted, arguments being confined mostly to debatable claims that the community affirmed the actions; but the issue of involvement was not raised in any other forum where a determination on that was made.) The finding sought is not of bad faith, or even of error other than that of acting while involved. Then comes what JzG might do, which is what, by precedent, I thought ArbComm would be likely to require on the facts shown. And, if this fails, then comes "further process." The goal of the further process, if undertaken by me, which in this case would be before ArbComm, would be the same, presumably: clear assurance to the community that the errors will not be repeated, or resignation or removal of the admin bit. This RfC cannot command any of these, nor prevent appeal to ArbComm, so much discussion here has been moot. The RfC has been an opportunity for the community to attempt resolution of the dispute without further action, but much comment here seems to be of the nature of denial that there is any dispute of weight. --Abd (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the case that either you or I misunderstand the nature of an RfC (and it could well be me). As I understand it, an RfC is created so that other editors can comment on the dispute. It's not a court case where we need to affirm that JzG has acted improperly, or that alternativly we doubt the evidence. Instead we comment on what we see, providing an outside perspective on the problem. And if one of those perspectives is that the dispute is not of any weight, then that is a perfectly reasonable direction for it to head. Any actual "proposed solutions" then emerge from the discussion, and may or may not reflect the desired outcomes outlined in the initial stages. Or at least that's my reading of things. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and good faith gentlemen. Ikip (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby is correct. It is not a court case, first of all, because it has no coercive power, in theory. In practice, the closing admin sometimes makes decisions based on it, I've seen a topic ban be declared, for example. So, theoretically, as an example, a closing admin could declare a topic ban for me, one for JzG, or other possible sanctions, and proposed sanctions can be discussed for the consideration of whoever closes. Another possible close, see the JzG RfC2, cited in this RfC. RfAr thataway. Since going to RfAr is a possible result here, I find it odd that there is objection (including from editors I consider friendly) to mentioning it! Yes, the proposed solutions do not necessarily reflect the original complaint, which certainly did not mention any topic ban for me! However, given the obvious split in the community, it seems likely that if this RfC does make some recommendation, it's likely to be short-standing unless confirmed by ArbComm (which confirmation could be, simply, rejection of an appeal). That JzG be desysopped was not a proposed solution here, RfC can't determine that, nothing short of ArbComm can. However, the community could recommend that JzG acknowledge the error, which is why that was stated as a desired outcome, and the outcome of resignation was mentioned only as a theoretical possibility that would, in fact, resolve the dispute. Seems pretty unlikely, unless the community were to unite on the basic issues raised in the RfC, according to what I consider the obvious evidence. Which, again, seems unlikely. --Abd (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a "proposed solutions" section. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I removed it. There is no tradition of these sections at RFC (DrKeirnan aside) and such proposals belong at RFAR. There is certainly no consensus on here to start this and RFCs do not vote on resolutaions, Only on opinions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To accommodate Spartaz, I'll note that any editor can propose a resolution as a comment, and then other editors can endorse that comment. There is a problem with existing comments, which is that some of them are somewhat shotgun in nature, and proposed resolutions were mixed with general comments, etc., so I'd recommend specific resolutions being added, for editors who have already commented, as new subcomments with separate endorsement sections. Or a closing admin can just try to figure it out....--Abd (talk) 17:36 16 April 2009}}

I opened a section at WT:RFC here to get a general opinion from RfC regulars. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there is a motion to close, you want to solicit more comment? The time for such a section would have been early on, not now, when, last time I looked, there was no opposition to close, and I already said I would not oppose it. --Abd (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the definitive response:

Of course [a "Proposed solutions" section is] acceptable: it's a simple cut-and-paste job out of the official alternate form. (Perhaps you were unaware that the RFC/U page gives you two choices for user dispute pages? The two buttons on the page are not redundant.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Ikip (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems some users are unfamiliar with the nuances of RfC like WhatamIdoing. So for the record, the official alternate form is very much separate from the standard RfC form used in this RfC (i.e. the alternate form has no desired outcome section at the top - but has a proposed solutions section at the bottom instead which exists for voluntary agreements by parties; particularly useful for disputes concerning a larger number of users and actions). There is no reason to merge the alternate form of RfC with the standard one here; particularly when no clear consensus exists, but rather, there are undisputedly mixed views either way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been claimed by JzG that I canvassed for certification. I discussed the RfC with a few editors, mostly by email, prior to putting it up. I believe that discussion among a writer and researcher of an RfC and a few editors interested in certifying it is quite appropriate. I did no general solicitation, and in seeking certification, when Enric Naval, who had unexpectedly volunteered certification for his own unscrutable reasons, withdrew, I asked two editors who had attempted to resolve the dispute, specifically Durova and Petri Krohn, and they certified. (JzG is incorrect, Dtobias did not certify, but endorsed.) I also discussed the RfC with one more editor prior to filing it, who did not certify, in the end, probably because the editor had not made a clear attempt to resolve the dispute as required, but who did encourage me and helped refine the text. This is far short of violating WP:CANVASS, and I suspect it's common. I can say that I'd be very unlikely to write a decent RfC, which takes a huge amount of work to do right, if I didn't have reason to think that it would be certified, i.e., without consultation and some encouragement. The upper reaches of WP:DR are not to be navigated alone, if one can't get help, that's a clear sign that one is on the wrong path. It's unfortunate that JzG has chosen to treat this as being only my insanely stubborn perseverance, but I'm unlikely to personally disabuse him of that notion, it would take someone he trusts to do that, and if those he trusts similarly defend him against the evidence, I'd say that his administrative services are likely to be lost to the project. As to notice of the RfC, it was mentioned in a few places, such as my Talk page, User:Abd/Notices, and JzG Talk, but the widest notice probably came when JzG filed an MfD in an attempt to delete the RfC based on improper certification. --Abd (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take your endless posturing and filibustering over to RFAR already? Put up or shut up. Skinwalker (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd has already explained the reason: "JzG's friends have been trying to warn him that he may lose his bit at ArbComm over this, but he's not listening, and the only reason I've been waiting before going to the A/C is a hope that he will acknowledge the error at the urging of his sober supporters, ... " [45]. For my part, as I said, [46] I think one should keep quiet about it until one is ready to start the process. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Coppertwig. From my POV, RfC is a kind of triage room for RfAr, I would not create an RfC on a user, which can be stressful on all sides, unless I was prepared to take the matter to ArbComm if not resolved by the RfC and editorial responses to it. So, if it is from me, you might consider a user RfC -- this is the only one I've ever filed, since most disputes are resolved below that level -- as notice of potential RfAr if the community cannot effectively address the issue. Others, here, I might note, have threatened, variously, to seek to topic ban me, to take this to RfAr directly or to AN/I for harassment, etc. I think that my clear statements have been appropriate, that stonewalling and smokescreen here (I am not the issue, though certainly the RfC calls attention to me, and sanctions for frivolous RfC or other harassment could come out of one, but can't be directly decided by one), refusing to deal with the direct and simple questions raised in the RfC, but instead defending JzG without addressing those issues, or addressing them as being minor, and/or attacking me, was likely to simply cause escalation to RfAr more quickly than otherwise. --Abd (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think all sides have had their say: it is clear that there are mixed views on this matter (eg; 29 users have endorsed JzG's response as well as Fritzpoll's view, 12 have endorsed Abd's statement, and varying numbers have endorsed other views). I intend on delisting this early, with the endorsement of the community.

All I've seen so far is noise of possible-future ANI/AN discussions and ArbCom cases, but let's not kid ourselves - this RfC has outlived its usefulness, and rather than wait for a period of inactivity (which might never come), I want to close this within the next 7 days. Of course, if there are significant objections by both involved and uninvolved parties, then this is the time to raise them to avoid the closing of this RfC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close (as proposer). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. Way past useful Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. No longer useful. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. Never useful, all it has done is highlight Abd's problematic behaviour. Verbal chat 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support decision to close, per Abd below. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Agree with close. No further comments at this time. Cla68 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Striking vote. If Abd or anyone else wants to add a "Proposed solution" section, they should have a chance to before it closes. Cla68 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. It is all aired out, two diverse and good editors at odds skip sievert (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. I see no new arguments likely to be presented, there has been ample opportunity for such mediation as I suggested, let's move on toward a resolution, which is unlikely to happen here, so we can all return, unimpeded by senseless dispute, to building the project. --Abd (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well said. skip sievert (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to see a retraction of the canvassing claim by JzG. That's a serious and unfounded charge of ethical violations, and he made no attempt to inform me of the suspicion either before or after he posted it for others to read. Nor is it the first time JzG has taken it upon himself to impugn me in public fora in preference to normal dialog. Abd had no need to ask for certification of this RfC: more than once in the past I could, justifiably, have entered formal dispute resolution regarding JzG and refrained from doing so. I engaged him on the recusal issue in good faith and the result was unsatisfactory. There is only so many times one treads the fine line between avoiding conflict and implicitly endorsing the notion that certain people are above policy. I demand prompt and clear retraction, plus assurance that it will not happen again, and am wholly ready to carry this to RFAR if it is not forthcoming. Durova^Charge! 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to see Abd agree to improving his talk page technique as it's pretty much the only thing that has come out of this RfC. Shot info (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep open. I have always worked on the assumption that RFCs run 30 days, though perhaps I'm wrong on that. My approach is generally that "I have lots of time to read the comments and make my choices", so it's always disconcerting to see a premature close. From my own POV, as is obvious from my endorse-patterns, I'd still be hoping for a consensus topic-ban of Abd vs. JzG/CF/talk (sorry Abd, but that's my call). And given the fairly large casestack at ArbCom last time I checked and Abd's apparent intentions (sorry again Abd, but I really think you're just ticking off the boxes here) - I'd rather suggest waiting 'til whatever normal timeout expires. Franamax (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note, this motion purports to close the RfC between 5 and 10 days earlier than your assumption; so far, I see nothing to suggest any change will be achieved here (whether it's beneficial or detrimental to contributors and the project). Perhaps, all participants may consider restraining themselves from going to a noticeboard or ArbCom for the difference of 5 or 10 days; and instead, after that period of time, reassess whether they feel involuntary sanctions are still necessary at that time, or whether there are signs of improvement or voluntary sanctions. (As usual, no involuntary sanctions can result from this RfC.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with NCMV and came to -- and stated -- the conclusion of 'no likely change' quite a while ago; there is dispute delineated here that is clear, and efforts to resolve it may happen more effectively outside of formal process short of ArbComm; certainly I'm open to considering delay, but ultimately that decision will rest on a judgment of ongoing damage or hazard. Going to a noticeboard, if there is an immediate problem, was open already and closure here doesn't affect that right, nor does it affect, in fact, the right to go to ArbComm for urgent matters at any time. Closure here simply recognizes that leaving it open for the full period isn't likely to find a resolution, and, instead, the RfC may serve as a soapbox for continued dispute between entrenched factions. --Abd (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. This RfC has become a soapbox for one user it and I fail to see how this is contribution to improving the encylopedia. There may be a case for a topic based form of dispute resolution but neither of the two main participants seem willing to modify their own behaviours so it becomes pointless. Taking things to ArbCom does not seem warrented, while JzG may have made a few questionable decisions these are in the past and not of sufficient severity to justify any sanctions. --Salix (talk): 07:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are unaware, a request for arbitration has been filed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]