Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/JzG 3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:38, 11 April 2009

This page was nominated for deletion on 05 April 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

incomplete timeline of blacklisting of lenr-canr.org

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]

From User Talk:Ikip

RFC JZG 3

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

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

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]

Certification

I am withdrawing my objections to certification, per a discussion offline with Abd. The results of the RFC will speak for themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 04:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certification by Abd

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

Certification by Durova

(some comments copied or moved from project page)

I dispute this certification as Durova's effort was aimed at the blacklisting issue. I believe that issue was resolved through community dialog, and JzG's action was upheld. I do not see Durova addressing many of the points of contention here. Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second this dispute. Durova has not intervened in any of the discussed interactions except for the one that closed with a ringing endorsement of JzG's actions.Hipocrite (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of the blacklisting appeal itself is unrelated to the propriety of recusal. If an administrator blocks an editor while involved in a content dispute, and the block is upheld upon appeal, that does not obviate concerns about the use of the tools while involved in a dispute. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the certification by Durova to be valid. Durova tried to resolve the dispute here ("...you had a role in the content dispute itself, as well as acting in an administrative capacity. It's important to maintain a separation of function between admin and editorial roles.") Jehochman has provided no diffs to support his claim that JzG's actions were upheld; there may be differences of opinion as to whether or not some previous discussions specifically addressed the issue of JzG's use of tools while involved, or addressed JzG's behaviour as opposed to the merits of upholding the result of his actions; I'm not convinced that these issues were directly addressed in any previous discussion that I'm aware of. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the action itself was upheld is irrelevant. WP:UNINVOLVED does not state ...unless you're right. It would have been easy for JzG to have brought it to the attention of uninvolved administrators for independent evaluation and implementation. Yet even when confronted after the fact, he sidestepped the issue about recusal. Durova^Charge! 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The action being upheld is highly relevant. It allows WP:IAR to come into play. We don't harass admins with RFCs when they get it right, even if there is arguably a technical violation of a rule. Please show diffs, Durova, where you addressed any of the other points complained about by Abd. The blacklist complaint is trivial because JzG's action was upheld by the community. (By the way, I agreed with you then, and still do now, that JzG should have left that for somebody else to handle. Neverthess, I think this RFC is an excessive, vexatious response.) Jehochman ^Talk 23:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

See my comments below, regarding Dan and Coppertwig. It is my opinion that Jehochman has inadequate appreciation of the significance of administrative recusal standards. There is nothing vexatious here, at least as far as my participation goes. Per my statement, if I had any vexatious tendencies they would have been pursued at last year's RfC and arbitration. In regard to dispute resolution and JzG, the record demonstrates I have been quite reticent. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, but I'll speak for myself. You have no idea what I do or do not appreciate. Clearly, Abd and Dtobias have strong personal conflicts with JzG. That already colors this RFC as grudge-bearing, rather than as legitimate dispute resolution. I don't know whether you have a "history" with JzG. (It was alluded to by somebody.) Do enlighten us. If there is a history of personal conflict, it should be disclosed. Jehochman ^Talk 00:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second: you can't certify it if you haven't had a dispute with him, and now you can't certify it if you have had a dispute with him? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you apparently don't understand the certification requirements, or did not carefully read what I wrote. There has to be a good faith attempt to resolve a dispute. Personal conflict can manifest when one party habitually attacks another over any perceived slight. That type of conflict should not come to RFC where the filing party uses the RFC process as a means of personally attacking another editor. That's exactly what I'm complaining about here. A few editors seem to want to jab JzG, and they are using a moot complaint about WP:UNINVOLVED and a bunch of other stale matters as a pretext for putting JzG in hot water. I am calling "bullshit" on this tactic. (Adding: a few good faith editors may have gotten sucked into the process as well.) Jehochman ^Talk 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman has a point: I have no idea what he does or doesn't appreciate. For that reason I depend entirely upon observations of his actions. What I observe is that, at approximately two month intervals, he acts in ways that are contrary to my understanding of norms for recusal. That is what I call a pattern, and my attempts to engage in dialog with him on this issue have been unsuccessful. If somebody really wants to discuss it further the place to do so would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jehochman; we've gone about as far as we can at this venue, and other than affirming that I differ substantially with him on this principle there seems little left to discuss regarding that matter here. Durova^Charge! 00:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Certification by Petri Krohn

(some comments copied or moved from project page)

I dispute this also. We don't hold RFC's on moot issues. The blacklisting was resolved through community discussion. Where is there an attempt to resolve an actual issue in dispute that remains unresolved? Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second this dispute. Petri Krohn has not intervened in any of the discussed interactions except for the one that closed with a ringing endorsement of JzG's actions. Hipocrite (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Certification by Dtobias

(some comments copied or moved from project page)

I dispute the certification of Dtobias. This was not an earnest effort to resolve a dispute. The history of conflict between these two is legendary. Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second this dispute, and additionally question if Dtobias is disrupting the encyclopedia by Wikistalking JzG to say the same thing he's said about JzG before. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider certification by Dtobias to be valid. Dtobias tried to resolve the dispute here ("But my objection here is less to the specifics of that site or its owner than to the concept that adding things to the blacklist can be done unilaterally without discussion by one admin, while removing them or making exceptions to them requires consensus") It certainly looks to me like an earnest effort to resolve a dispute! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make me laugh. Dtobias wasn't trying to resolve a dispute. He was trying to use JzG as a pincushion. Needling a traditional opponent is not dispute resolution. The fact you'd support this certification, Coppertrig, calls your judgment on the others into question. Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping Jehochman would leave his comments no farther than they had already gone, but his open accusation regarding Coppertwig's judgment goes a bit too far. The fact is, on matters of administrative recusal Jehochman himself has a questionable record. Last December Sarah--the owner of the unblock requests mailing list--took Jehochman to task for attempting to review and decline an appeal of one of his own blocks. About two months later at arbitration enforcement an editor sought a second opinion of a thread closure Jehochman had performed, and rather than post a request for uninvolved review to AN (which would have been completely above reproach), Jehochman responded by topic banning the editor who had challenged his own decision. I questioned his action on the latter occasion and received an unsatisfactory response. If anyone initiates a similar conduct RfC on Jehochman, I would certify that too. Durova^Charge! 23:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to JzG's comments

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

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

(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]

Stay on target

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]

Comment on views

Comment on Jehochman's view

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:

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:

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]
This much is entirely valid. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Guy, where are you?

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]

Limits on RfC

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]

On the closing of this RfC

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 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Moved from the main page

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

If you have enough supporters on Wikipedia, telling editors to fuck off is perfectly acceptable. At least, that is the lesson that I have learned with JzG, on Wikipedia, all editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others.

If wikipedians are going to respect wikipedia rules, then wikipedians should get the assurance that those rules equally apply to all editors.

JzG's behavior and the editors who defend such behavior weaken and make a mockery of wikipedia.

Personal attack in response to this RfC

You are a complete waste of my limited time. I am seriously wondering if you are on the autistic spectrum...[8]
Dan "every link is sacred" Tobias, the perennial gadfly and borderline troll.[9]

Newer personal attacks, after the last two RfCs

...while Dan and often behaves like an obsessive trolling idiot, I consider you an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel...and presenting your sick, twisted little fantasy as truth, thus prolonging the drama. 15 April 2008 [10]

(more)

Dated while the second RfC (2 March 2008) was ongoing

Of course you disagree, because you are on a holy crusade to protect the sacred right to link to crap. 15:33, 25 March 2008 [11]
To User:Mista-X The days when you could troll article subjects are long gone, if there ever were such days. 21:00, 25 March 2008 [12]
Quite the opposite. I am striving very hard indeed not to let Dan troll me. I have a long history of rising to the bait when trolled, especially when someone is as good at getting my goat as Dan is. 18:15, 25 March 2008 [13]
...nothing was removed except the letters "http://", which is hardly an issue of such magnitude as to require you to come trolling the noticeboards, I'd have said. 13:44, 25 March 2008 [14]
Go away you ED-spamming worthless troll. 14 May 2008 [15]

Dated before the second of two RfC (9 August 2006 and 2 March 2008)

Fuck off back to Wikipedia Review. 07:53, 25 January 2008 [16]
Fuck off and never ever post here ever again, period. 11:58, 25 January 2008 [17]
Fuck off. Fuck right off. 22:15, 21 May 2007[18]
And I want you to fuck off.[19]
Fuck off Well screw you. I saw the deleted content, and it was shit. Pure, unmitigated, unrelieved, venomous, worthless, POV-pushing shit...Why the fuck would we want to undelete this festering heap of faeces... 21:09, 14 May 2007[20]
Having given this the consideration it merits,fuck off.[21]
The message I was trying to convey is this: edit some articles or shut the fuck up you whining twat.[22]
Fys, you are an idiot. And that's official.[23]
Fys is an idiot. And you can quote me on that.[24]
some more comments, since the clue-deficient may not have spotted these things about me.[25]
Your hysterical outpourings on WP:PAIN are likely to achieve very little other than to ensure that you are dismissed as a crank. 15:54, 4 January 2007
JzG and his supporters have also taught me that it is okay to call other editors trolls, see User:JzG/Troll-B-Gon and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Troll-B-Gon.
Deleted personal attack.[26]

Reply to Fritzpoll's view

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]

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]

Recent abuse

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]

^ (May not be fully comprhensive)
^ (May not be fully comprhensive)

[1] (May not be fully comprhensive)

[2] (May not be fully comprhensive)

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 403: / Line 403: @@
 :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. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 03:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 ::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. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 12:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
+==Recent abuse==
+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.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 15:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)