Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request to narrow initial focus

1)Please act to narrow the focus of this arbitration, at least initially, to the most urgent and weighty issue presented, administrative recusal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

My review of the evidence to date has not led me to question my initial view, expressed at the acceptance stage, that there is thin fodder for an arbitration case here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

(added later) I agree with NYB, except that there was one narrow issue, presented and developed in the RfC, and not resolved there. Most comment and discussion in the RfC avoided that issue, or implicitly accepted it but proposed inadequate or "shoot the messenger" solutions. Yes, thin. And for that reason, quickly resolved had scope been limited. For the future, ArbComm may wish to consider the principle outlined here. --Abd (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This case became qualified through a focused RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3, on the topic of alleged failure to recuse when involved, and the evidence presented was limited to that issue. Whether or not JzG was "correct" in the actions was moot, and I acted (with some success) to prevent the RfC from becoming a laundry list of complaints against JzG. However, a majority of respondents in the RfC, which should be reviewed, did treat it as a content dispute and alleged misbehavior on my part. Nevertheless, WP:DR was not followed with respect to my alleged misbehavior, and that matter would ordinarily not be ripe for examination by ArbComm. It is obvious that if ArbComm determines that JzG did not violate policy, then my dispute was disruptive and my behavior would then be a proper topic for immediate examination. However, if JzG did violate policy, and if my behavior was within bounds as a following of WP:DR, then immature examination of my behavior, searching it for flaws, would be, in itself, a chilling example deterring others from similarly following WP:DR, and we need more of that following, not less. Hence I request the Committee to narrow the focus of this case, at least initially, to JzG's actions as an administrator, allowing, pending resolution of that issue, normal process to address my own errors, such as they may be. If the Committee does this, I need not answer all the allegations and irrelevant false charges being made on the Evidence page, knowing that, later, I would have an opportunity to address them if they do not become moot. There is some discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop#Possible motion to narrow focus of this case.--Abd (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Abd's and JzG's actions each need to stand on their own. Even if Abd's accusations prove incorrect, that does not mean Abd has done wrong. On the other hand, if JzG is found to have misused tools, that does not exonerate Abd. There are possible outcomes where both are right or both are wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman. Unfortunately, I don't see any other support appearing for the concept of disentangling the issues. There is no argument with the decision of the arbitrators to examine the conduct of all parties; the question is only one of sequence. A person is not charged with frivolous litigation until after the original cause of action has been found to be baseless. We don't prosecute someone for false fire alarm until we first check to see if there is a fire, and we don't, to save time, do both at once. I know what I was suggesting, I know that it would simplify process, and I also know that Wikipedia does things the hard way, but it's really up to ArbComm. My experience tells me that when I make a motion and nobody seconds it, shut up and move on, it doesn't matter how right I think I am. --Abd (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue of JzG's alleged policy violations and my alleged misbehavior are separate issues, and only related in one direction. JzG's behavior was not with respect to me (or my interests, I was totally uninvolved at the time). My behavior was with respect to his, and is the subject of evidence and comment here only because that has been raised as a kind of defense of JzG, and as a coat-rack for other disputes. Hence whether or not my behavior was justified and appropriate is, at least partially, dependent on whether or not there were policy violations of substance. It's true, my behavior is ultimately an independent question, except that if, say, immediately before the filing of this RfAr, JzG had acknowledged the error and promised not to repeat it, it is nearly certain that any dispute over my behavior would be resolved short of arbitration, probably before RfC. Jehochman can testify that I seek consensus and that I use DR properly, because I did it with him, and you can see the positive working relationship that developed from it. The allegations re my behavior are immature for AC, not having been the subject of an RfC, and not being an emergency. (If they are an emergency, then ordinary recourse for disruption is available, I do not interpret that I have a free pass because this is at ArbComm, and, further, ArbComm could issue an injunction.) Similarly, I would not have raised issues regarding the usage of the blacklist by other administrators, because, again, it seems consensus is within reach though ordinary process and an ArbComm ruling not necessary at this time.

In addition, I don't raise this issue just for myself, but as a general issue about factors that cause arbitrations to become far more disruptive than necessary. If A/C confined itself to narrow questions, one at a time, and acted to restrict expansion of cases (quickly remanding immature disputes back to the community), it would become far more efficient, taking advantage of what is well-known in dispute resolution off-wiki. More cases, perhaps (though not many more), but faster resolution, by far. It's tempting to try to resolve multiple issues at once, but centuries of experience show that this is far less efficient and far less likely to find true consensus. I'd drop the request, here, completely, except that there has been so much comment that I can't. In ordinary deliberative process, no motion is debated until there is a second. For ArbComm to adopt the practice of prohibiting debate on a motion, here, unless the motion is seconded, a great deal of wasted time would be avoided. Nobody seconded my motion, and were I chair, I'd rule it failed for lack of a second, and it would be collapsed as closed for that reason. We'd have been done with it in quickly. Maybe there should be a process chair for ArbComm procedure, perhaps appointed by the committee, with rulings of the chair appealable for immediate determination without debate by the committee. I.e., what anyone here who has experience with real world consensus and deliberative process would see as normal. (Clerks sort of do this, but with no guidance on the point I've raised.)

So, I'm going to request that a clerk, absent objection, i.e., the appearance of a second, close and collapse this motion as having failed for lack of a second, and consider doing that with others. (It's reversible, should anyone later decide to support such a motion.) Be bold. --Abd (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." This is just as much about Abd's ongoing incivility, wikihounding and general disruptive behavior as it is about JzG's long past recusals or lack thereof. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see where Abd is coming from with this, but don't think the case will go any faster or be any more efficient a use of time if it is split into two. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Six of the 11 accepting arbs indicated an expilict intent to examine the actions of all parties (by my rough count). It's a little late for one of the parties to suggest their own actions shouldn't be considered until the other party has been examined. Especially since the suggesting party has used every possible avenue to have the "other" party examined and censured leading up to this case. Franamax (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: I think the problem here is that a finding of wrongdoing by JzG does not imply a specific finding (or lack thereof) with regards to Abd. JzG can have been found to have done something wrong and Abd could be sanctioned for having approached it inappropriately. I think Abd views this case as having two possible combinations of findings: (JzG = wrong, Abd = right) or (JzG = right, Abd = wrong). In reality, it is possible for both parties to be right or both parties to be wrong (crudely speaking) and so it is of greater efficiency to examine the parties together, when the evidence is necessarily overlapping. Abd is not being "prosecuted" for frivolous litigation, but his behaviour is being examined in how the complaint was pursued. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee should not limit its mandate to the issues as specifically put forth by Jehochman when he initiated this case, for indeed we have a variety of questions and issues to be dealt with here that go beyond the scope of simple mediation or dispute resolution: Arbcom should feel behooved to clarify whatever issues and disparities led up to this case in the first place - including the issues raised in the dispute-resolution process leading up to this case. However this case as presented by Jehochman does not (understandably) itemise all these issues and therefore the scope of the case is very poorly defined, and users seem to be adding some irrelavancies to the scope, and, are adding only some of the many relevancies to the scope, resulting in a distorted scope for the Arbitration Committee.

Furthermore, looking over this case, when we look at the Dispute-Resolution process leading up to this far, we see that Abd has extensively followed the dispute-resolution process (rightfully or wrongfully) leading up to requesting a case with ArbCom as a last resort which was in fact imminent based on the result of his last RfC; but his opportunity to present his case and propose his own mandate to Arbcom has been usurped/circumvented by Jehochman's case request; instead of being able to present his own case, he has to instead defend someone else's that has a totally different scope. I do not believe that the best interests of the project are served with an unclear scope as presented in good faith by Jehochman, and nor is it best served by cramming millions of issues into the scope of this case. In real life judges have the ability to separate trials/cases, especially when it is more economic to do so, or in the alternative they go to their jurists and present them with a very clear scope. Abd's request to "narrow the focus of this arbitration .. to the most urgent and weighty issue presented" is not totally without merit; and neither is NewYorkBrad's assertion that there is thin fodder for an arbitration case simply because Arbcom has not been presented with a thorough context or scope by Jehochman.

Some may call me cynical of ArbCom's capabilities but this may be mistaking my naivette, and my comments here are made with respect, in good faith of all parties, and with genuine concern -- mistaken or unmistaken. Rfwoolf (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also since remembered that one of the conditions of an Arbcom case is that previous attempts to resolve the problem through dispute resolution are required before a case can be opened (Arbcom is the final stage in dispute resolution). Here, dispute resolution has not been tested with regards to disputes of Abd's handling of the matter, and yet it is given full weight, meanwhile Abd's actual concerns as laid out in his RfC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3 which has gone completely through dispute resolution without consensus being reached has to share the same floor. Arbcom should of course be allowed to accept disputes that have not finished going through dispute resolution which is what I think has happened here, but that doesn't mean it is the best or most fair thing to do and perhaps there should be a guidelines discouraging it if a party was going to file an ArbCom case after his own attempts at dispute resolution, only to be beaten to the punch by another user. It is still "early" in the process, but so far things don't appear to be moving forward in a fashion that is befitting of Wikipedia's final step in dispute resolution. Under this line of thought, User:Jehochman should not have opened this Arbcom case because he was not the one following dispute resolution, Abd was. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Jehochman

Proposed principles

Policy and point of view

1) Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not are core policies. They are not points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We welcome editors with different points of view. We do not welcome editors who persistently violate content policies. There are claims that Guy was involved because of his efforts to enforce these policies. Jehochman ^Talk 10:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Maybe I just don't get it. Who said they were points of view? Why does this need to be said? If there were specific application shown, maybe. Guy claimed reliance on policies, often, but his understanding of how to apply them was colored by his involvement. No allegation has been made by me of bad faith; he clearly believes that our policies would prohibit, for example, any linking whatever, for whatever purpose, to lenr-canr.org, and he even edit warred in an attempt to prevent it after we managed to get one page whitelisted. However, that same assumption of good faith requires me to consider that he hasn't been competent to judge when to recuse or not, and recusal when involved is also a policy. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2009

Clarification Administrators cannot enforce NPOV with tools, this is a basic misunderstanding shared by too many administrators, not just JzG. This is because NPOV is not a POV that an admin holds; when an admin judges that text is POV, the admin has developed a POV, or is, as in the case before us, applying a prior POV. NPOV is not developed or enforced except through editorial consensus; where narrow consensus is warped, we broaden attention through WP:DR; however, the best negotiations are made in good faith between involved editors, i.e., those who know the topic and who have, therefore, opinions of weight, not merely knee-jerk reactions. The job of administrators in this is to mediate and enforce behavioral guidelines, and the process breaks down when an admin fails to recuse when involved or is applying prior prejudice, thus warping behavioral enforcement toward one POV. Examples abound, unfortunately, even though most admins very properly recuse when involved. Edit the articles or police behavior around them, don't do both, and, even though not editing an article, don't support just one side of a content dispute with tools, based on agreement with that side. --Abd (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Just wanted to point out that NOT is NOT a 'core' policy, at least by most people's definitions. It's a policy, but not one we die by, like V, NPOV, and NOR. rootology (C)(T) 01:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Contradicts WP:NPOV, which says "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints". It's also unclear what the relevance is to this case. It's very common for content disputes to revolve around different interpretations of how to apply content policies in specific situations. Believing that one is enforcing a content policy is not normally an excuse for editwarring, for example, regardless of whether a later majority vote or consensus decision agrees with your interpretation or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

2) Dispute resolution is for resolving disagreements. It may not be used to intimidate, pressure or wear down an opponent.

2.1) Dispute resolution is for good faith attempts to resolve disagreements. It may not be used to intimidate, pressure or wear down an opponent. Likewise, editors may not exert improper influence, such as threatening blocks or bans, to deter others from making legitimate dispute resolution requests.

2.2) Dispute resolution is a process for resolving disagreements over article content or editorial behavior. It requires the same civility standards as every other action on Wikipedia and should not be abused to make personal attacks. Users who are misusing this process as a way to intimidate, pressure or wear down one or more editors may be sanctioned. Likewise, editors may not exert improper influence, such as threatening blocks or bans, to deter others from making legitimate dispute resolution requests.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Necessary because there are allegations that WP:DR may have been gamed. Whether or not this happened, it is important to state as a principal that WP:DR may not be abused as a WP:BATTLE tactic. Jehochman ^Talk 10:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I added 2.2 to synthesize what I'd seen so far. I'm still not confident it's complete. DR hasn't been used with me, mostly, so I don't see it from that side; editors not infrequently warn me, complain about me, but don't take the next step of involving a third editor, especially of involving someone neutral. In the other direction, I've seen an RfC filed by admins on an editor when, clearly, the goal from the beginning wasn't to develop consensus but to ban the editor, with whom they were in content conflict, and simply to show a basis for that. Something I'd really like to see this RfAr encourage is for WP:DR to be followed by the book and by the intent of it. It works, usually, even at a quite low level, and it only fails when positions are entrenched, in which case escalation becomes necessary. --Abd (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Elemental but too vague. I think it should rather be expanded, maybe like this:

Dispute resolution is a process for resolving disagreements over an article's content. It requires the same civility standards as every other action on Wikipedia and should not be abused to make personal attacks. Users who are misusing this process as a way to intimidate, pressure or wear down one or more editors who hold different views can and will be sanctioned accordingly.

Thoughts? Regards SoWhy 20:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally, WP:BATTLE is in part defined as a failure to use proper DR channels. The wording here is very vague and eminently gameable; we may expect many disruptive editors to invoke it, if it becomes part of the decision. Durova^Charge! 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, WP:BATTLE has included instances when people used WP:DR with no intention of actually resolving a dispute. They were trying to get their opponents sanctioned, blocked or banned, by whatever means were available. See also vexatious litigation. Jehochman ^Talk 00:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The dispute resolution used here was conduct RfC, initiated because Abd saw a need for recusal with regard to the spam blacklist. Considering that within about the last day a site was removed from the spam blacklist by consensus, and that JzG himself agreed during RFAR that he probably ought to have recused, I am curious to know how this case might be distinguishable from normal and proper use of dispute resolution. What is vexatious about this? Durova^Charge! 00:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're jumping ahead. This is a principal, not a finding of fact. Various people have alleged vexatious litigation. We should first agree to the principal that vexatious litigation is a bad thing. Then we can look at the evidence and see if that happened, or not, and explain why or why not. This is how we can get people on both sides to agree, hopefully. I have done a very large amount of negotiating in real life and have a pretty good concept of how to get to "yes". Jehochman ^Talk 00:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed principle: the sky is blue. How is that or this relevant to this case? Durova^Charge! 00:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where I am, the sky is black. Shall we edit war over it? [snark, not earnest] Wishing you a beautiful sunset, Jehochman ^Talk 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The strange thing is you begin posting workshop proposals a day after the case opens before one of the two principal named parties has presented evidence, and then call the response to your proposals premature. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hows about Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning? Is that the idea you're after? rootology (C)(T) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I really like that. Dispute resolution is not a competitive sport. Jehochman ^Talk 01:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Both the versions proposed by Jehochman and SoWhy refer to misuse of the DR process by intimidation and pressure. However, as Durova has noted, it is proper for some disputes to escalate through the process, and this is sometimes met with accusations this escalation is actually inappropriate pressure, wikilawyering or battling. I think Jehochman is right that a pinciple noting the inappropriateness of vexatious litigation is needed; however, recognition is also needed that attempts to intimidate people into dropping a case or not escalating to the next step in DR is just as wrong. The mere fact that someone has moved to the next stage of DR is not a reasonable basis for criticism. EdChem (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How about 2.1? There are allegations in this case that improper influences were exerted to prevent DR from moving forward. Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think 2.1 is a substantial improvement... it recognises both types of abuses - and I think there are allegations of both in this case. EdChem (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't kept it in mind, but there were instances of threats that I'd be sanctioned if I continued. JzG, though, only wrote something like this once, as I recall. Nothing I'd bring up. I suppose I could look it up if someone thinks it relevant. The RfC was filled with comments that I should be banned, basically for pursuing WP:DR, though of course it wasn't stated that way. Rather, as I recall, it was for "disruption," for "beating a dead horse," for harassing JzG, or for unrelated offenses. Hey! that dead horse just got up and ran out the barn door! (newenergytimes removed from the blacklist, lenr-canr.org has one whitelisting and really is a very similar situation to lenr-canr.org, so one-and-a half down, a few to go. None of the other issues have been presented for DR resolution beyond initial comment. --Abd (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. 2.1 is an improvement over 2, but I have concerns about this sentence: "It may not be used to intimidate, pressure or wear down an opponent." Giving someone escalating warnings, then applying sanctions or soliciting opinions from other users, with the ultimate goal of persuading the person to change their behaviour to conform to a policy or guideline, could be described as "wearing down" the person, and the use or warning of use of sanctions could be described as "intimidating", but such actions are a normal and necessary part of wikiinteraction. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The operative term is opponent. One should not be sanctioning an opponent. If you come into a situation as uninvolved, you are free to warn or sanction an editor as required to protect the project from disruption. I am sure the wording could be improved. Please propose something, Coppertwig. Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

CommentThis comes across as disingenuous (I know, AGF etc). You've proposed two principles. The first one you pretty much explicitly say is intended to move things towards your preferred conclusion (Guy is only seen as involved because of his darling efforts to enforce policy). The second one you then indignantly defend as just being a principle when people naturally see it as another step towards your desired conclusion. You say you have done a lot of negotiating in real life but is that really how you find it works - you propose a set of principles on the basis that the first one is directed towards exonerating party A and the second one is just setting out that if party B did what he's accused of then that would be BAD (let's agree that before discussing whether he did it...). Do you think that in negotiations outside of Wikipedia that party B would tend to view that as antagonistic? Why not start by saying how inappropriate it would be to make admin actions when involve in a content dispute, because Guy's accused of that? Don't get me wrong, you're allowed to be partisan I'm sure, but I don't think jumping backwards and fowards between partisan advocate and neutral negotiator is going to work. (disclaimer, not a party, yes a busy body, no account etc. etc. But that doesn't affect the point I'm making) 87.254.80.250 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Using tools while involved is inconsistent with 2.1, at least as I read it. It is likely to be intimidatory. It certainly is using improper influence. And, it is questionable whether such an action is taken in good faith. However, I would agree that the principle that using tools while involved is inappropriate, potentially sanctionable, and that it invites additional scrutiny should also be stated. Admin recusal is definitely an issue in this case. EdChem (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've held off on this as long as possible. Both versions of this proposed principle include the assertion that dispute resolution may not be used to intimidate. Compare that wording to an occasion that happened less than one month ago in connection to the JzG RFC. I had posted to Jehochman's talk page saying "I have no wish to enter formal dispute resolution with you, but no reluctance to either. So if you wish to shake cyberhands, please post a few words to that effect. Best wishes," (full text here)[1] which Jehochman blanked with an unpleasant edit summary[2] and followed up at my user talk to say "I despise the way you keep threatening me with process," (full text here).[3] Now if--according to Jehochman's own words--that constitutes a misuse of dispute resolution on my part, then I am at a loss to conceive how I may ever use it properly. Are editors to be left without recourse when an administrator assaults their integrity? Durova^Charge! 21:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, editors may request dispute resolution at any time, if they do so in good faith. What they may not do is use threats of dispute resolution (vexatious litigation) in an attempt to dominate another editor, or overwhelm them to redundant complaints hither and thither. Jehochman ^Talk 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you reconcile that with your own reaction to my statement less than three weeks ago that you did not come to the JzG RfC with clean hands on matters of recusal, and that if I were the initiator of this case it would have been named Administrative recusal and included you as a named party? The terms upon which you initiated this case and have presented workshop proposals could be read as an attempt to frame the scope of discussion in terms of a microdispute between JzG and Abd, which might be laudable on the part of a truly disinterested Wikipedian, but the fact is that it also happens to be to your direct advantage to define the scope on these terms--in ways which you have not disclosed within the case despite your very active presence here as case initiator and workshop proposal writer. Durova^Charge! 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Sheesh! Look away for a few minutes and the kids are squabbling again. Durova et al, Jehochman's proposal is basically right and does no harm, especially if the best and most complete wording is accepted. I know that there is lots you can say about this, and it's mostly better left not said. Sure, I don't like Jehochman's "framing," not really expressed with this proposal, and, sure, it's part of the problem, but, one issue at a time. Part of building consensus is accepting whatever is, at worst, harmless from the other parties. With other proposed findings or principles, the "personal squabble" framing may come up, though the nails are falling out day by day. We can deal with it then and, Durova, I'm sure you'll have plenty to say on it if it does, and I may be right there with you. Meanwhile, I've got the rest of my evidence to prepare, articles to work on, and kids to get to school in the morning.... --Abd (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone needs proof that Abd and I are not two peas in a pod, there you have it. Now as everyone probably knows, Jehochman and I haven't always been best of chums either. Regardless, each issue I raise is presented on its merits--not as a pretext for supporting or opposing particular people. People can find themselves in awkward positions when workshop proposals go up too early; that probably applies on all sides. Durova^Charge! 02:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I have no doubt that you raise some valid points. Yes, I thought it was early myself; how about having a week's evidence? Is there some emergency here? I don't think so, JzG isn't editing at all (may have nothing to do with this), though some may think my editing a problem. But if that's an emergency, every admin has a block button and, besides, I respond to warnings from administrators. Even when I don't agree with them; I then, if I think it important, follow WP:DR with the warning admin or at least obtain community support before proceeding. But obviously Jehochman had a different view, and it takes all kinds to build a project. --Abd (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

3) The spam blacklist is used to prevent the addition of links to Wikipedia which have been spammed abused widely. The spam blacklist is not for filtering out unreliable sources.

3.1) The spam blacklist is used to prevent the addition of links to Wikipedia which have been, or are likely to be, abused widely, or which contain malware or copyright violations.

3.2) The spam blacklist is properly used to prevent the massive addition of links to Wikipedia without review and consensus. As such, any addition of links, whether the individual links are proper or not, may result in blacklisting, if other means of addressing the problem proves inadequate. Content arguments, such as "not reliable source," are irrelevant to blacklisting itself, except that "reliable source" may be an argument for delisting or whitelisting specific pages. If there is no continued danger of widespread unexamined link addition, prior blacklisting, whether proper or not, should be irrelevant to a delisting request. - This is not my proposal. Please propose in your own section. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. May need technical tweaks. Jehochman ^Talk 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Yes, it might need some expansion, because there may be some applications of the blacklist beyond wide linkspam. However, this statement does leave room for other possible uses, it simply rules out one that is, by consensus when considered, not legitimate. Going further than that here may not be appropriate. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm. As "spammed," the word might offend some editor, yes, but "abused" opens the door to discussion at the blacklist of what constitutes abuse. "Linkspam" is a term of art that refers to massive addition of links without finding consensus even if the links are legitimate, and routinely, I've seen sites blacklisted where every link was legitimate in hindsight, but being added in volumes such that there is also legitimate concern that the links aren't receiving due consideration. Then, because blacklisting creates a severe problem for naive editors who can't save an edit to any part of an article or section they are editing, because of some link that they won't necessarily recognize, the links must be removed. So antispam volunteers end up, sometimes massively, reverting good edits with no discussion. Convenient for the antispammers, but sometimes harmful to content. Instead of "spammed" or "abused," I'd suggest "to prevent the massive and rapid addition of links to Wikipedia without a showing of acceptability." Otherwise we will see what we've seen in Beetstra's evidence, that links added in a good faith belief that they were appropriate, over a long period of time, come to be viewed as evidence of abuse. "Abuse" is a term which could apply to any allegedly inappropriate link. "Copyright violations," unless massive or involving a site where we should know that copyvio is likely, is an argument that was used against lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com. Possible violations below that level create no legal risk for Wikipedia. Editors should not have to verify and prove that a page on a durable and readily visible web site is not a copyright violation, it turns quick edits into a red tape nightmare. Low-level copyright problems need no blacklist, the blacklist is quite clearly designed in MediaWiki for prevention of massive linkspam that can't be dealt with any other way. Possible exceptions to "massive addition without review" or whatever should be documented and accepted by consensus, otherwise there will continually be disruption about this. Absolutely, a A.B. notes below, malware is an excellent exception, one that can be treated as an emergency. What is essential is that broad generalizations about the supposed unusability of a web site ("Not reliable source") not become a reason for blacklisting. --Abd (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed 3.2 to reflect actual practice plus issue raised in the extended DR process over the original problem blacklisting. Blacklisting typically doesn't originally consider content appropriateness at all, and the case of Lyrikline.org shows that the concern is only massive addition; evidence didn't consider content arguments, and content was actually appropriate, as subsequently shown. There may be exceptions, no doubt, but use of the blacklist to enforce NPOV or "fringe" opinions or judgment of source reliability is a dangerous mixing of admin power and editorial process. The problem with blacklisting is generally not abusive blacklisting, that's rare. The problem is with excessive reluctance to delist or whitelist when a danger can be seen as past, and the "danger" is not that a source may be inappropriately used; that happens all the time. The danger is that links will be spammed, i.e., massively added without opportunity for review and consensus. --Abd (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The links Beetstra examined in his Evidence were generally used in Cold fusion, an article under constant and intense review, there is no danger of extensive inappropriate links remaining there. What Beetstra's evidence amounted to was a finding that two web sites, probably the most visible on the internet on the topic, were used for sourcing claims, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not. Basically, for blacklisting purposes, this was no evidence at all. The original blacklisting "notice for transparency" by JzG didn't provide the evidence normally seen, but just alleged "promotion" of the site. That could refer to linkspam, but, in fact, there was no linkspam at all, the "promotion" was the signature of an IP editor on Talk:Cold fusion, of "Jed Rothwell, librarian, lenr-canr.org" which was not a link at all, but a non-linked title, showing notable expertise, as well as conflict of interest, and these site mentions were not interdicted by blacklisting. --Abd (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved 3.2 to my own Proposals section. --Abd (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Generally support, though one might consider "The 'spam blacklist' is used to prevent the addition of links to Wikipedia which have been abused widely" (spam and spamming being negative perojatives which tend to offend people). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We sometimes blacklist sites on en.wikipedia that are extremely abusive but have not been widely spammed. Furthermore, URL redirects or malware sites are blacklisted on site on Meta. Copyvio sites are also often blacklisted even if not widely spammed. Finally, we'll often blacklist a spammer's other domains even if not yet spammed when the spammer has ignored multiple warnings regarding his spam domains. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment: the blacklist is occasionally used to filter out unreliable sources; the most prominent instance was Jimbo Wales' decision to blacklist blog.myspace.com. The instances are few and far between but appropriate in my opinion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Is version 3.1 better? Jehochman ^Talk 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether 3.0 or 3.1, does this principle amount to ArbCom setting policy as to use of the blacklist? (Given that there is no "among other uses" clause) Is this within ArbCom's remit? Franamax (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Franamax here on reading 3.1 (the problem is less with 3.0).

Reply to Abd. A lot of spammers here come in good faith, and even SEO's do. They come here to 'enrich' our Wikipedia with their links, and with their information, and to enable the wikipedia community to find their products. They don't know that they violate our policies and guidelines, and hence abuse 'our servers'. Still, they do. Generally, we warn, and if there is no positive response (or it can not be expected due to changing accounts), then the abuse if of a form where sanctions aremay be necessary. You say here "Otherwise we will see what we've seen in Beetstra's evidence, that links added in a good faith belief that they were appropriate, over a long period of time, come to be viewed as evidence of abuse.". Some of the links I present there are recent links, at times where IPs are warned using captchas (I think it is "MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-addurl", in this form since December 2007 "Your edit includes new external links. These may be much welcomed links to references. Please note that the nofollow HTML attribute is applied to external links in Wikipedia, instructing search engines to ignore these links when computing page ranks. For information on our standards for adding links, please see our External links Guideline."; question, do not autoconfirmed editors also get this?). And in times where discussions with Pcarbonn about POV etc. were already ongoing. I agree, blacklisting on single abuse is too harsh (exceptions are there, but generally), but if the abuse is over a longer period of time, multiple editors and multiple wikipedia pages, and at least some of the editors were at least warned (and note, that IPs are warned even if they don't have a warning on their talkpage!), or issues were discussed, then the distinction is different (I however would agree with a phrase "is the abuse here of a scale wide enough to allow for blacklisting?", but suggesting that there is abolutely no proof of abuse here .. hmmm ..). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Expand: Abd, you seem to be afraid, that "abuse" will encapsulate the blacklisting of unreliable sources without them having been abused or spammed. Abuse here means that a site was abused, that there have been editors who have used the site in any form of abuse. What constitutes abuse, and what is 'wide scale' is down to interpretation and discussion, but we are talking about cases where editors (including admins) have reason to blacklist because they see additions in the past which they see/interpret as a form of abuse. There is, in my opinion, for regular sites absolutely NO reason to blacklist without it having been abused (possible: redirectsites and malware sites, and sites which are part of a larger group of sites (where a number of these were already significantly abused, e.g. all websites registered to a spammer which reside all on one server) being exceptions, these exceptions should probably be mentioned separately in guidelines or policies). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, 3.1 looks better. I'd also add something along the lines of "The spam blacklist is also occasionally used to block unreliable sites that have not been spammed but only after very widespread community discussion and consensus." --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose 3.0, support 3.1. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally disagree with 3.2, there are cases which are not covered, like abusive links (attack sites), links to malware sites (sites which are a threat to users following the link), redirects (tinyurl and such), pre-emptive blacklisting of links on same server (like porn sites, where the first sets were abused), or which are clearly a target of the same SEO (where the SEO is working for a group of websites, and has started spamming a couple of them), and actually, links which are totally unreliable sources (like blog.myspace.com). The blacklist is to stop abuse using external links, plain and simple, not just "to prevent the massive addition of links to Wikipedia without review and consensus", and that is better covered in 3.0 and 3.1. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)(strikethrough, you are right Dtobias --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC))Proposal removed, comment here unnecessery. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Attack sites"? Is WP:BADSITES still being used as an excuse to suppress links? *Dan T.* (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What's this badsites thing I keep hearing about? It must be something from before my time here. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Abd and dispute resolution

1) User:Abd has not used dispute resolution in bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I've said this before. While Abd might have pushed further than he should have, he was acting in what he thought were the best interests of the project. Jehochman ^Talk 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How could I possibly disagree with this? --Abd (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This gets into assigning motivation, which is dangerous ground for ArbCom. It also seems a bit misplaced - after all, the worst harm that has befallen this encyclopedia has been done by people unshakably convinced that they were acting in the best interests of the project. MastCell ^Talk 03:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't know motivation; true. We can draw reasonable conclusions based on observed behavior. Abd has been accused of causing severe disruption. At some point we have to decided this issue. If there has been a failure of community-based dispute resolution, we have to find out why. I am proposing that Abd has not acted so improperly that they could be deemed as acting in bad faith. Fact is, Durova supports Abd's position, so he's not alone in this. There's probably at least some merit to his complaint. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, it has maybe gone on a bit too far, but I do believe he is acting in what he thinks is for the best interests of the project. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Abd believes he's right. I also think this finding is unnecessary unless there is going to be something said about Abd's style in general, and I am finding it difficult to imagine what can reasonably be done there. Things could probably have be handled better, but I don't think ArbCom is about to pass a remedy urging Abd to use better judgement - and even if it did, what would that mean? EdChem (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Trivial and thus irrelevant. We are required to assume good faith unless there is overwhelming and blindingly obvious evidence to the contrary. Abd has not vandalized the mainpage, set up 50 abusive sockpuppets, etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

JzG and Cold Fusion

2) JzG has stated that he will not administrate in the area of cold fusion going forward.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just to make clear what was already agreed at the suggestion of User:Newyorkbrad. Jehochman ^Talk 23:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with this is that the issue wasn't Cold fusion, it was admin recusal. Do we need a separate promise for every article and situation that JzG might encounter where he should recuse? Does he promise not to block Nuxx bar? Quite simply, I didn't look for general abuse of tools, just with respect to one article. However, no big problem, it's just a fact, I think, if supported by a diff. It's just not terribly relevant. Let's see what the evidence page shows after a week, and especially after JzG submits evidence, if he does. --Abd (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the specific instance serves as a warning for the general situation. JzG is clueful and well-meaning. I think he'll be more careful about recusal going forward. Hopefully he'll post something to that effect. Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think that; unfortunately, the evidence shows otherwise. JzG was under an RfC for failure to recuse, and, in the middle of it, he removed an IP edit from the RfC and blocked, while, on the face, involved. Even if JzG had some legitimate reason for the block, the appearance of involvement creates an obligation to recuse. This block, a few days ago, shows a failure to take the matter seriously and to alter behavior, even under scrutiny. Cold fusion was merely an example. While it seems possible it was a coincidence that investigating Cold fusion history turned up so much evidence, it's unlikely. From prior cases, such as those of Tango and Physchim62, with showing of "pattern" less than seen here, the community and the committee seem likely to need an acknowledgment from the administrator that a subject action was a violation, and then, a promise not to repeat such violations -- with any involvement -- in the future. Physchim62 and Tango, no doubt, blocked in good faith, but showed, by the action, a disregard of recusal requirements, and continued, once challenged, to defend the actions as proper, as has JzG. It was very clear with Physchim62 (and, I think, Tango) that the community and committee would have forgiven everything if they had acknowledged the error. So far, after much request, JzG came up with, in his statement in this RfAr, "maybe I am not the best person to take action on that article any more, having become imbroiled in the dispute." This acknowledges no violation, in fact. So what happens the next time JzG encounters a situation, is involved, and thinks he should block or blacklist or whatever? Will he recognize the involvement and recuse? There is no question of punishment, but it is not punishment to prevent further damage when there is reason to suspect that damage will recur. --Abd (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No comment on most of your post, Abd, but I just want to point out that this FoF only refers to JzG's further administrative involvement in the topic of cold fusion; it makes no assertion that he has stated he will similarly recuse himself elsewhere, which seems to be what you're concerned about. The statement you quote ("maybe I am not the best person to take action on that article any more, having become imbroiled in the dispute.") does state that he will stop using the tools with respect to cold fusion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem, from my perspective, is that Abd keeps saying that Guy has had ongoing problems, but the evidence doesn't support that. Am I missing something? Is this block really the only instance of recent "admin abuse" to be found? Because I think you'll find it difficult to get people up in arms about blocking an obvious troll who followed Guy here from an off-wiki dispute. There's not much substance here. Time might be better spent organizing and presenting actual evidence of an active problem (diffs, log entries, etc) rather than repeating claims which seem to lack a sound foundation. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerks, please reserve comment sections for parties to comments by parties. This comment may be moved with those above by non-parties as a threaded response. I will present evidence of JzG incivility before the week is up. I had hoped to avoid that issue, in spite of substantial urging off-wiki to bring it up. Apparently it's necessary now. No, the recent block I do not see as uncivil, particularly, but as evidence of recent action while involved and flagrant disregard of what was already extensive notice to JzG by the community that it was a problem, as described in the RfC and, of course, including the RfC itself. I'm not seeking to "get people up in arms," at all. I'm asking for a sober judgment by the committee. --Abd (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with this. Abd, this is about the cold fusion case, we don't decide here about possible 'refusal' to recuse in future cases, similarly to not blacklisting sites that can be misused in the future. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

One consequence of this case is that any finding here will serve as notice to JzG. Hopefully that would prevent any hypothetical refusal to recuse. Should that contingency occur, as Abd fears, I expect the Committee would take swift and stern action. Jehochman ^Talk 11:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should JzG fear Committee would take swift and stern action when someone who pledged to not revert JzG's adminstrative actions in front of ArbCom less than 1 year ago is reverting JzG's adminstrative actions? Pledges to do things in front of ArbCom are apparently unimportant and irrelevent - like pledges to be "open to recall." Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose unless a diff of an unambiguous statement to that effect is provided. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Ronnotel

Proposed principles

Tools exist primarily to sanction behavior, not content

1) The use of administrative tools should be limited to the minimum required to prevent disruptive behavior. Using them to restrict access to material in a content dispute should be avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't know about that. The delete button sanctions behaviour? The ability to move over redirects? To edit the MediaWiki interface? To see deleted edits? To edit locked templates? In fact, a large number of admins use tools without ever using them to sanction behaviour. Risker (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support --Abd (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Risker is correct, of course; rather, the reference is to admin tools that do control behavior or content. The ability to see deleted content is probably a privilege that could be more widely given out; other examples of admin privilege do involve risk when used to affect content. The proposed finding should certainly be edited to narrow its application. --Abd (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

At their most fundamental level, administrative tools are meant to be coercive - i.e. to discourage disruptive behavior and encourage productive. Their effectiveness is lost when they are employed against something incapable of learning, such as the content itself. Ronnotel (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the general statement, "Tools exist to sanction behavior, not content" however I would support "Using the blacklist to restrict access to material in a content dispute among established editors should be avoided." As to whether the blacklist is a behavioral or content tool can be a matter of semantics; It's commonly said in dealing with spammers that "blocking is a behavioral tool to protect Wikipedia while domain blacklisting is a content tool." We sometimes use page protection, another tool, in content disputes for brief periods of time. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, AB. However, I do think it's important to stress that the primary purpose of the tools is to address behavior. I believe a much higher level of care should be shown when they are used to address content concerns. I suspect this is something we can readily agree upon. Is the description of my proposed principal in line with your thoughts? If so, perhaps we can come up with a better tag line? How about Tools exist primarily to sanction behavior, not content'? Ronnotel (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've discussed this at great length with Beetstra. The general statement is accurate. "Should be avoided" doesn't mean that there are no circumstances where the blacklist process may -- nay, must -- consider content. Maybe a general statement about use of admin tools is important, but perhaps also a more specific one about the blacklist itself. Bottom line: blacklisting was designed to deal only with massive linkspam, that couldn't be handled other ways, so if that doesn't exist, there should be no blacklisting, and exceptions would require a strong showing of damage (such as malware, good example). Then, if the danger is past, delisting should probably be routine. I will, later, give examples. However, if there is real and present danger of massive linkspam, then whitelisting specific pages becomes a cumbersome but necessary way of dealing with legitimate use, and this, then, should require some showing of either necessity, or, possibly, simple, nearly automatic process whereby registered editors can easily request whitelisting, not be grilled about it, and it's granted by a neutral admin, and blacklist volunteer admins would not ever decline a whitelisting request, because of the circularity that gets set up. This means less burden on the blacklist volunteers, who do a very important and difficult job. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Abd and I have discussed this at great length, and agree on the basis of the terms (sometimes disagreeing on some semantics or on terms, but well). Admin tools should indeed not be used to control content, we fully agree on that. But I disagree that page protection, blocking people and blacklisting links is 'controlling content'! The only 'content' that is blocked by blacklisting a link is the external link in the external links section. I still insist that blacklisting a link does not disable adding content to the body, and referencing it to the material on the blacklisted site (pointy example, but again, if I say, that I said in revid 283836766 on this wiki "I am not disputing, anywhere, that these sites contains good information and with the copies that are there there are no copyright issues.", then you are able to confirm that; it is more work, but it does not make it untrue, unverifyable etc.!) You only can't link to it anymore (in references, the link is a convenience link, not a absolute must, though it is certainly helpful (and I am talking about content space, not about talkpage discussions, yes, it also hampers discussion on talkpages!!). Also, it is not the end, specific links can still be whitelisted where needed. Blacklisting hence slows down the editing, and makes people think about what they add, and 'forces' discussion, but I do not believe that it really controls content. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that Beetstra, after stating it incorrectly, went on to acknowledge that blacklisting does not only control the External link section. Most spammers add links to those sections, they can find them quickly, so perhaps that's why Beetstra would be thinking of this. The blacklist, however, also blocks references, and it blocks Talk page references, where many links may be appropriate that are not appropriate for the article itself. For example, to understand background for an edit to Cold fusion, it may be appropriate to link, in Talk, a conference paper that's not directly usable in the article. The whole point in Talk is discussion of the material and the topic as related to improving the article, and so "convenience links" are even more important there, it's quite difficult to carry on a discussion when many of the editors can't read the sources! Now, I get around this in Talk all the time: I just put the URL inside nowiki tags, like http://lenr-canr.org -- but it's a nuisance, a continual reminder and it takes everyone just a few seconds more. For no good reason.

Convenience links are far more important than Beetstra seems to imagine. Verification isn't just an ideal, it should actually happen. Readers who are serious students follow references and read the sources to learn more about the topic; universities teach students that, no, don't depend on Wikipedia, but use Wikipedia to find sources. Further, when readers do this, they will find errors in the article, where a source has not been fairly represented, and they may then fix the article. I found, in one of the ADHD articles, a reference to a journal publication. It said something that I thought strange. I couldn't find any copy of the paper on-line. Normally, for me, that's the end of it, I don't have ready access to a good research library, though one of these days I might fix that. However, in this case, I went to a hospital that had the journal and read the article. It had been grossly misrepresented, and the misrepresentation hadn't been noticed for well over a year. Sure, we trust editors, and if they cite a source that's a rare book, we don't usually challenge it. But it is far better if it is easy for readers to read sources and verify and it helps them not only to learn about the topic more deeply, but also it helps the project, because then we get source checking. --Abd (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Proposed principles

The purpose of talk pages

1) The purpose of talk pages is to communicate. Users should make sufficient effort so that others can understand them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yah. Talk pages are not for obfuscation. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed; paraphrased from the policy page WP:TALK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Long, rambling messages

2) Talk page comments should be concise. Posts longer than 100 words should be shortened. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.

Comment by Arbitrators:

100 words limit per talkpage post? Geez, if someone enforces that against me, the only question will be should I retire, or just type every fifth word? (How long has that been in the guideline, anyway? Quite seriously, I've never noticed or heard of it before.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I read all of what Abd wrote below. It was not excessive in length, and I can see the point he is making and I agree with him when he says that "Longer messages may be clearer than shorter ones, as well as the reverse." I agree that some of what Abd writes is too long for most people to read (I've failed to finish reading some of his posts), but you (SBHB) jumping on his reply as an example of what you dislike is a clear example of setting someone up to fail. It is what is said, not how it is said that is important, even if there are problems with how it is said. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Don't waste words. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two types of writing: exploration or detailed examination, and polemic. Polemic, to be effective, should be as brief as possible. Discussion, however, will vary in length, depending on many factors. When a writer has a lot to say, and only a little time, the length of comments expands rapidly. With more time and more polemic intent, the writer will boil it down. A very few people may be capable of highly effective, immediate, and concise writing, but every writer I've known who was brief and cogent spent hours polishing text. Tl;dr is fine as a reality, but often "tl;dr," as a comment, is a sarcastic expression of "I glanced at this, I don't like it, and responding would take more effort than I care to expend." Reading long, rambling, or off-topic posts on a Talk page is optional, and an editor sacrifices no rights by ignoring them. Where they truly damage communication, refactoring, such as using collapse boxes, is an option, and when done without hostility, can be effective. Invited to condense or summarize comments, I will almost always do it, and sometimes other editors kindly summarize what I've written. So, to boil this down: Should implies a goal. To communicate a conclusion, brevity is the soul of wit. Longer messages may be clearer than shorter ones, as well as the reverse. To explore a topic, to develop rapport -- with sympathetic editors --, greater length may be required. Proposed principle is true, but one-sided and unnecessary. --Abd (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an example of the type of commentary that is of concern here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, someone inform me if threaded responses by non-parties in the "Comment by parties" sections are allowed. I'd say it shouldn't be, there is a reason for giving parties a special section, we have far more at stake. This response may be removed if the comment above is, or moved with it, presumably to the "Comment by others" section. Or SBHB is welcome to declare himself a party, and gain the privilege and risk with the rest of us. Maybe responding in the "parties" section should be considered joining as a party! --Abd (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken near-verbatim from the policy page WP:TALK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Struck the "100 words" bit per NYB. The important point is "Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood"; the 100-words specification is not central to the principle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nyb, although I agree about the 100 word limit, I think you ought to still take the rationale on-board (as stated at 03:04) and form a principle to reflect these views, which are, relatively widely held. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Widely-held views can be dead wrong, and not infrequently are. The real question is what happens when these views are carefully examined in an environment where arguments are compiled and compared in an organized way, which frequently doesn't happen outside of ArbComm or perhaps RfC (content or user -- and too often RfCs become free-for-alls that fail to address the core issue). Genuine consensus, the agreement of the knowledgeable, is truly powerful, and quiets disputes, but we too often short-circuit the process and assume consensus from which part of the crowd is shouting louder. --Abd (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't favor specific arbitrary limits, but in general people should try to be concise; we're not lawyers being paid by the hour to read and understand this stuff, but people doing it in our own spare time. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course. However, we are also not professional copy-editors paid by the hour to boil down comments. I've been such a professional, I do know how to do it, but it takes lots of time, it takes not only skill, but work. When I think it's important that as many as possible read my comments, I do boil them down, but for more diffuse discussion, I assume that many, or most, even, won't read them beyond skimming the first few words. Whatever is important from such discussion will come back around, being, then, much more specific and focused. I've seen this argument about long posts on-line for over 25 years; long speeches in meetings are a real problem. Long posts where people can skip the whole thing in a flash aren't. It was, 25 years ago, one of the exciting things about on-line discussion. Censorship to avoid people having to listen to long rambling speeches was no longer necessary. Yet people still complained, as if they imagined they had some obligation to read everything. Obviously, the dispute hasn't ended. --Abd (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time on talk pages of controversial articles, and I've seen this come up before. The party line is that if someone is going on too long or disrupting a talk page, it's no big deal, because you can just ignore them. We're not obliged to read everything, as Abd notes. But the party line is wrong. A talk-page discussion is like a conversation, and it can just as easily be disrupted by a long-winded, disputatious, insistently tangential presence. I will leave it to others to determine whether Abd fits this description, but I think the harm caused by disruptive talk-page presences in general is grossly underrecognized. MastCell ^Talk 04:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. Less is more. Mathsci (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the goal. If the goal is imposition of majority view on a minority, as a decision that seeking consensus with the minority is undesirable, less is more (efficient). If the goal is consensus, it's well known that less is less (effective). Consensus takes discussion, and often a great deal of it. It is unsurprising that those who don't understand this have difficulty finding consensus, and come to be known for taking very strong and contentious positions on one side of a dispute. Present company? --Abd (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I find this post almost impossible to understand. What precisely do you mean? Mathsci (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, it was too short for you. I'll let someone else explain, if they care. However, if it's true that the post represents a mature understanding, you might actually have to take as much or more time to read and understand it than I took to write it. --Abd (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not too short. It's just poorly written, a stream of consciousness. Unlike you, a high percentage of my edits are in namepsace, where I add content in both the arts and sciences. Unlike you, I could not be called an SPA. My advice to you, Abd, is to stop making thinly veiled personal attacks. It's just childish and you are old enough to know otherwise. Any additional comments should be placed on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Since all we really do on Wikipedia is talk, one's effectiveness ultimately depends on one's ability to convince others. It's probably worth taking some fraction of the time one devotes to pursuing wikilegal processes and redirecting it to consider what makes for effective communication. Short, cogent posts are more effective than long, rambling discourse. Imagine the following: someone is bloviating at length about a minor content point, raising all sorts of political arguments, citing censorship of minority viewpoints, employing Galileo analogies, etc, and discussion hits a brick wall. Then someone else comes in and proposes the same change in concise, cogent, direct language, and the change is accepted by all with a minimum of fuss. I see this all the time on Wikipedia. It's nonsense to imply that long, rambling posts are essential to consensus-building - in fact, they are directly inimical to it. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You mistake later stages of consensus building with earlier ones, and with the process by which people come to be able to make those "short, cogent posts" that are, indeed, more effective. Lengthy discussion isn't for everyone, it's really for a few. Then someone who then comes along and makes the effective post and may have read the longer posts. Ask Coppertwig. You seem to imagine that there are simply some people who get it all immediately, without lengthy discussion. Fine. Let such people do what they do, but also let people who get there in a more, shall we say, detailed way, do that as well. I just know that detailed and, yes, lengthy -- even tedious -- discussion is well-known to be necessary for standard consensus process off Wikipedia, and I'd say that the assumptions behind what you have said, MastCell, just might explain, if many editors are carrying them, why some disputes go on and on and on. These are disputes that can't be resolved without deeper discussion; occasionally they become moot because of some shift, and are then resolved, again, by those quips. I know, for myself, that, with a new topic, I can't write those sharp, to the point, penetrating comments, usually, until I've written at much more length, and have seen some response from others (even if only one editor) in response. Quite simply, I learn through discussion, including from going back and reading my own writing. Once I've done this for a while, you might notice, I then become far more concise; for me, being concise is a sign that I've developed a strong POV, which you could also call a "clear understanding." --Abd (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is something that the ArbCom wants to, or should, be ruling on. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mildly trivial note: As the original author of the 100 word "limit", I would like to note that it was originally, and still is, intended as a crude guidepost for when you're starting to get into "too long" territory, rather than a hard and fast rule or any kind of absolute limit. As the page itself actually says: "Be concise: If your post is longer than 100 words, consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. If you need to make a detailed, point by point discussion, see below for how to lay this out." ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Coppertwig

Proposed principles

Dispute resolution is not for punishment

1) Dispute resolution is for resolving disputes about how things are to be done in the present and future. It is not for punishment, either by the community or by an individual, for things someone has done in the past.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Note: desysopping is one possible outcome of this process, though not the desired one on my part. Desysopping isn't punitive, and it is only in order when conditions lead to a reasonable fear that an administrator may abuse the tools in the future. Administrative status is a special privilege, and properly retained only by those who, among many other characteristics, are capable of understanding recusal policies and have not shown unapologetic disregard of them. --Abd (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Content policies are enforced by editors

2) Enforcement of the core content policies often involves nuances and requires judgement. Editors often differ in opinion as to whether a given edit conforms to the content policies, requiring discussion to resolve the dispute. Content policies and guidelines are best enforced by discussion among multiple editors, calling on broader community consensus through established channels when necessary. Content policies are normally not enforced through use of administrative tools except by uninvolved administrators acting on community consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Clear. --Abd (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but again this would need significant proof of JzG being involved in the article, and also here if the tools were used to control content, or to combat abuse. Otherwise, I do not see why this is relevant. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement of content policies and involvement

3) Content disputes frequently, perhaps usually, involved disagreements over how to apply content policies and guidelines in a particular situation. Therefore, believing that one is enforcing a content policy (even if such belief is justified) is not a sign that one is acting in an uninvolved administrative capacity; on the contrary, it's a sign that one is involved in editing the article (except in cases of obvious vandalism, obvious copyright violation or obvious BLP violation).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. This isn't just about JzG, use of tools based on a content judgment is fairly common; if we could read minds, we'd prohibit content arguments as a basis for administrative actions, but we can't. However, such arguments as "disruptive," "fringe," "POV-pushing," and others are clues that content judgments are involved. If you think that a position is "fringe" or "imbalanced," (see Beetstra's Evidence), you are making a content judgment, and shouldn't be using tools to enforce it unless violation of behavioral guidelines is crystal clear. One of the issues raised in this case is the use of the blacklist to enforce content judgments by administrators where linkspam is absent, but "abuse" is alleged.

It's tricky to define "edit warring," but we are very clear about the "bright line." We will block for 3RR violation even if an editor is enforcing content guidelines, excepting what qualifies as emergency: clear copyvio (i.e., where we are hosting copyvio), BLP violations, blatant vandalism.

It's rare to see an admin use tools to support a fringe POV, because "fringe," by definition, is a minority view (often very small minority); the danger is in the other direction, that admins use tools to enforce "majority POV," even when an editor is, in fact, following sourcing guidelines and policies for edits that appear to be "fringe." The usual argument (it's been advanced by Beetstra) is that these edits "unbalance" the article, but that judgment requires a judgment of what constitutes balance, which is one of the most difficult content judgments to make unless there is firm reliance on using preponderance of sources, balancing supposed "fringe" facts with "mainstream" facts from sources of equivalent reliability. And, then, to make the judgment requires familiarity with the topic, a familiarity which quite likely results in a POV. As has been pointed out by Carcharoth, at this point an administrator can probably do more good by joining the circle of involved editors. Use of admin tools rarely resolves genuine content disputes in a clean way.

Cold fusion is a particularly difficult case because there is a widespread belief that cold fusion was conclusively shown to be bogus in 1989-1990, but if one examines RS carefully, with particular attention to sources of high reliability (peer-reviewed or panel review), the claim of conclusive refutation vanishes and can be seen as a political claim, not a scientific one. This is a huge topic in itself, not to be resolved here, and there is sociological reliable source on it, but the point is that media sources can be used to claim such things as "The Pons and Fleischman results were never confirmed," which is a gross oversimplification, given the existence of 153 peer-reviewed papers confirming the Pons-Fleischmann effect (anomalous heat in a palladium deuteride system). Preferred sources of high reliability show something else; as an example, by the time of the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review, half of the reviewers found evidence for the heat "convincing," whereas the other half found it "not conclusive." "Not conclusive" doesn't mean "bogus," it means that the implications of anomalous heat are enormous and the very strong evidence needed to prove such was, in their view, not yet developed, thus the possibility remained, for this half, that some unknown experimental artifact was the cause.

Every reviewer in 2004 recommended further research. That is not done with pseudoscience or even with true fringe. It's what could be expected with "emerging science," where much controversy remains. So if an editor arrives at Cold fusion and starts editing the article based on recent (last decade) peer-reviewed or academic source, where the weight favors cold fusion, the editor is easily seen as "POV-pushing," because, in most media sources, until recently, this is a rejected field. Media sources recently reporting the rejection as conclusive (there were many reports in March due to a major development in the field) have mostly been doing what media sources do: rely on earlier media sources; those recent sources which show that they have done new investigation have been coming up with opposite conclusions. (See Talk:Cold fusion for reference to a report by CBS Sixty Minutes.) None of this is to be resolved here, but the point is about the effect of POV judgment on administrative action, and it is easily damaging. Content, including balance, should be determined through editorial consensus, with review through WP:DR as needed, not through administrative fiat. --Abd (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is described in WP:INVOLVED, 'One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them.'. The policy describes that 'may .. wish to pass ... not required to'. This would need to show again that JzG is involved significantly outside of this policy section. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This should not be passed as it stands. It is an invitation to choas because it allows uninvolved adninistrators to be tagged as 'involved in a content dispute' for any action in relation to a content policy or guideline. Already-problematic civil POV-pushers would have a field day with something like this.

I also take issue with Abd's statement that So if an editor arrives at Cold fusion and starts editing the article based on recent (last decade) peer-reviewed or academic source, where the weight favors cold fusion, the editor is easily seen as "POV-pushing," because, in most media sources, until recently, this is a rejected field. The hypothetical editor might be seen as "POV-pushing" because they are, well... POV-pushing. The declaration that anyone disgareeing with edits made based on recent sources is doing so because of media coverage is unjustifiable and potentially offensive. Just as an example, if an editor wanted to rewrite cold fusion based on a 2006 two-page paper "Miraculous Breathrough in Renewable Energy Research: Cold Fusion in Palladium Deuteride System Confirmed" that was published in the peer-review Journal of Royal Geological and Tiddlewink Society of the People's Democratic Republic of Western Togo, I would have objections... and they would have nothing to do with the media. EdChem (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you take issue with it. Part of my point is that "POV-pushing" is not a problem if done according to policy and guidelines. As to the JRGTS/PDRWT, recent papers are in, say, Naturwissenschaften, the same journal Einstein published in. It's a mainstream journal. Every argument in the book has been used to exclude this material: in the case of Naturwissenschaften, it was claimed that this was a Life Sciences journal, apparently based on how many articles it carries on the Life Sciences, and would therefore not have the peer-review expertise to judge a paper. A paper on what? Is it physics, or is it chemistry? Naturwissenschaften is published by the Max Planck Institute, I think there might be a few physticists available. My point wasn't about the conclusions, it was about the process: we need to find editorial consensus, and the issues aren't simple. Nobody is trying to weight the article based on some obscure paper, certainly not me, but even that statement could be challenged, because I did add material on what theories are being advanced to explain cold fusion, for which one must necessarily refer to sources that, er, advance cold fusion ideas, and this was based on the most reliable secondary source on that topic, and it's claimed that this is undue weight. But how undue weight is to be determined when the goal of an article section is to present the alleged "fringe theories," is a little tricky. If the whole topic is Cold fusion, and if this is a fringe science, how do we cover it? It seems that some editors don't want the theories presented, don't want the evidence for cold fusion presented, even when it's present in reliable secondary sources, because of an assumption of "fringe" and "not mainstream" that is not, itself, represented in peer-reviewed academic sources that are of current application, but only on media sources where the source hasn't investigated and is just parroting what the media said almost twenty years ago. As I wrote, it's a problem. I haven't demanded some particular solution other than informed editorial consensus, which takes time to develop. Lots of time, sometimes. --Abd (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd... if I might suggest, take a deep breath and calm down. I know we disagree on civil POV-pushing - let's agree to disagree and leave that to another time, as it seems clear it won't be addressed in this case. My second point was that there are reasons for concern / objections in relation to edits with more recent material that are not due to media coverage. The fake paper I suggested - disturbingly short given the ridiculously over-the-top title, and placed in an (I hoped humourously) obscure fictitious journal - would give plenty of valid reasons for concern. I'm a scientist and I find the idea that I'd evaluate a scientific issue based on media coverage alone (or even mostly based on it) offensive. Content debates specific to cold fusion don't need to be carried out here, and I agree with you that there are some difficult balances to be struck. My major point was that the proposed form of words is an invitation to chaos and endless disputation. For example, suppose there is talk page conensus on an issue of weight and an editor continues to make changes against that consensus, and an administrator is ask to intervene. Is the administrator who acts enforcing behavioural policy, or if the revert the changes are they changing content under WP:UNDUE? Is that administrator then conflicted out of ever acting on that page again, even if that was her or his first edit to it? A lot of changes can be argued as relating to both editorial and behavioural policy - so saying editorial policy involvement necessarily leads to be involved for considerations of tool use is dangerous. EdChem (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, is there an EEG attached to my keyboard? Ed, you make my point, actually. First of all, you are a scientist, correct. However, what's going on in science is far more than you can personally cover. You might make no judgments based on media, but I've been talking to scientists about cold fusion and, guess what? Most of them have their information on it from the media. And they are shocked to find out how far this deviates from the reality of actual scientific research, evidence, peer-reviewed reports and peer-reviewed and other reviews of the field. Have you looked at the recent CBS coverage? What's your field? Have you read the SPAWAR work in Naturwissenschaften and other journals? We agree on the basic point: there is a difficult balance to be struck. WP:UNDUE is not a behavioral guideline, it's a content guideline, so if an admin is using tools to enforce WP:UNDUE, the admin is crossing the boundary. From the other perspective, JzG edit warred to keep the whitelisted link to Martin Fleischmann out of the article. He pushed it right up against -- but not across -- 3RR. (I was not the only editor asserting the link. And, in fact, I didn't put it in, Enric Naval did, and you might notice his position re JzG and me expressed in this RfAr.) So, I went to AN/I, since there was edit warring by an administrator. (He hit 3RR, I think, but he'd removed the link many more times, just not in one day). I said, "Suppose he's right about the content. Is it allowed for him to edit war to keep it out?" The majority opinion at AN/I was that this was a content dispute and therefore administrative tools were not to be used. EdChem, that principle is consensus. They were wrong on the fact, it wasn't a content dispute, it was a behavioral one, I didn't go to AN/I over a content dispute, but they were right that, had it been a content dispute, it wouldn't have been a matter for administrative attention. What I did about the content was to discuss it, in detail, documenting consensus and expanding it, until the consensus became to use the link (whereas it had originally been divided; the flap over edit warring had attracted some editors initially sympathetic to JzG's position and buying the farrago of arguments he'd raised; previous to that, there was clearly rough consensus to use the link.) At that point it was put back, and I think JzG took it out once more, he was reverted and that was that. This was one of the links he had removed when he blacklisted.

The principle is sound. Content policy is not to be "enforced with tools," excepting mission-critical policies like COPYVIO and BLP. --Abd (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) On technical / scientific issues, I am shocked when the media coverage is accurate. Distortion, hyperbole, and profound ignorance are the norm for media coverage of science and medicine, in my experience - that's why if I hear a news story that is relevant to me or interesting, I'll check with a reliable source. I can't speak for the practices of other scientists, however.

(2) You appear to have misunderstood the point I was making about WP:UNDUE, and it was important so I will try to clarify. I suggested a situation where there is talk page conensus on an issue of weight and an editor is making changes against that consensus. Administrator intervention is requested, and an administrator new to the page examines the situation. The administrator forms the view that the edits are disruptive and against consensus, reverts, and issues a warning. The editor forms the view that the administrator is taking sides in a content dispute about the application of WP:UNDUE, and thus argues (following the reasoning of the proposed principle) that that administrator is then conflicted out of ever again acting on that page. See the problem? The administrator is acting on behavioural grounds but also needs to revert for content policy reasons; however, it should not follow that the editor and administrator have engaged in a content dispute. As many administrator actions can be characterised as relating to both editorial and behavioural policy, I maintain that an administrator's action having content policy involvement necessarily leading to that administrator being considered involved in relation to future tool use is inappropriate and highly undesirable. EdChem (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No use of admin tools by parties in a dispute

4) Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, but I am not sure how this is relevant. Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Jehochman, eh? This truly worries me. If Jehochman doesn't understand this, and there is in fact some allegation here by another editor that he doesn't, perhaps the Committee should consider that. However, I know Jehochman, and expect he will clarify this; he's been attempting to protect me from sanctions and I certainly don't want to go after his bit, and he would be far, far from the worst offender whose name has come up in this case! In fact, I don't even want to go after JzG's admin bit, I just want what I've asked for all along, most clearly in the RfC: an acknowledgment of error by him that then forms a foundation for continuing to trust him as an administrator. If he can't do that, this is quite worrisome as to future behavior, and ArbComm would need to consider how to proceed. --Abd (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand this just fine. Relevancy != correctness. Jehochman ^Talk 13:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. From Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of administrative tools. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To Jehochman: What do you mean, you're not sure how it's relevant? This is the whole heart of the issue: the question is whether JzG has violated this policy by using admin tools in such a way as to advance a position in a content dispute in which he was involved. You might try to argue that he has not violated this policy, but I don't see how you can miss its relevance. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I keep asking, and nobody is showing me actual diffs where JzG was engaged in a bona fide content dispute. Mere reversion of spam or vandalism or socking by a banned editor is not a content dispute. The above text was plucked from WP:ADMINABUSE, but you left out all the exceptions. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but as, with Jehochman, I have not seen a full violation of WP:INVOLVED, I don't see how it is of interest (yet?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Abd

Proposed principles

Usage of spam blacklist

1) (was 3.2 under Jehochman's proposals) The spam blacklist is properly used to prevent the massive addition of links to Wikipedia without review and consensus. As such, any addition of links, whether the individual links are proper or not, may result in blacklisting, if other means of addressing the problem prove inadequate. Content arguments, such as "not reliable source," are irrelevant to blacklisting itself, except that "reliable source" may be an argument for delisting or whitelisting specific pages. If there is no continued danger of widespread unexamined link addition, prior blacklisting, whether proper or not, should be irrelevant to a delisting request. In addition, the blacklist may be used to prevent linking to sites hosting malware, or for other emergency protective measures. Where a site is blacklisted, sites related to it may be blacklisted as well to prevent URL-hopping as an avoidance measure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This was proposed as a further version of the proposed principle above, it was struck by Jehochman, suggesting I start my own section, so here it is. Beetstra commented on it above as "totally disagree," (later struck) but it's blatantly clear that blacklisting process does not normally consider whether or not links are actually improper; the standard evidence consists of lists of editors and lists of edits, and does not examine whether or not the links are actually appropriate, and it would be impossible to make that judgment in the time available to blacklist administrators. I mentioned Lyrikline.org above. This was a case where links were added, slowly at first, to many articles on poets with pages hosted at the web site. The user did register here (home wiki was apparently de.wikipedia.org) as Lyriker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I have yet to find an actually inappropriate link added by Lyriker. The article Lyriker created was speedied, but, when I discovered this case as part of my investigation of JzG and blacklisting practice, I was able to get the article restored, and I've slowly begun adding back in links. Was the blacklisting of lyrikline.org proper? I think so! Lyriker was adding way too many links.

I added some text about additional uses consistent with blacklist limitations, as suggested by Beetstra. Beetstra, in a comment he later struck, did not seem to understand that links which are totally unreliable sources (like blog.myspace.com) represents content control and judgment; if a notable person or group has a blog there, known to not be impersonation, a link might well be usable in a biography of this person or article on the group. The blacklist was clearly designed to be used only as an extreme measure; if it's going to be used to control content (i.e., blog.myspace.com), then consensus should be found on this that is broader than that of a handful of blacklist administrators and volunteers who are more concerned about spam than about content. However, blog.myspace.com isn't exactly blacklisted. Myspace.com is. The original addition was, apparently, at the request of Jimbo. We have quite a few whitelisted entries, but most editors won't bother to whitelist, they just won't use a link, or will nowiki it, so the whitelistings prove only that a few usages were considered legitimate. My guess is that many more would exist if not for the blacklisting. Would these be "abusive"? Some would. But source abuse occurs all the time, the blacklist can do little about it. Better: bot discovery of usage of a "commonly-abused but not linkspammed" site, creating a project list, and leading to efficient examination and clearance of specific usages, or removal, which wouldn't take administrator time. This would be a focus on content, not on spam. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Respond to Beetstra: I wrote, about finding no inappropriate usages by Lyriker of Lyrikline.org links, "as far as I knew," and I've looked at many of them. If Beetstra is willing to waste his time to find one that isn't at least reasonable, he's welcome. There was one usage on de.wikipedia I noticed, it was, I think, the only one reverted there before Lyrik (the de user) gave up, by an admin there who didn't like the link; since I considered it a good link, I discussed it in Talk both on de and on our parallel article on Shona language and then added the links back with no opposition. Which proves little, except that, since what I've done on this is quite visible, (Beetstra reverted one of my additions to de.wikipedia, then apparently thought better of it and reverted himself), it's probably not really bad. As to what the list was designed for not necessarily limiting current practice, perhaps, but don't you think that when there is mission creep for a software feature, it should be widely discussed? My point about design was that the designers knew that this would be a dangerous tool, that it could warp content. Beetstra seems to be a bit naive about how content is actually created. If an editor wants to use a site, very few editors will go to the trouble of whitelisting just for one link. It took weeks to get the first link to lenr-canr.org whitelisted. All that for one link? Why did I bother? Because I saw that there was more at stake than one link, that's why, there are thousands of possible links, my guess, being blacklisted. (Start with blogspot.myspace.com!) I know of several hundred very reasonable links to lyrikline.org, plus possibly several hundred articles that might be created with information from that site. The community confirmed my position, and I think that the implications of this have yet to sink in for some.

Beetstra has elsewhere alleged that cross-wiki addition of links to 'pedias of languages other than the interface languages of lyrikline.org were inappropriate (Lyrik/Lyriker and known same-user IP did this). That's a content judgment best made at the 'pedia in question. I know that there are many links here, on articles about poets who write in other language than English, to non-English web sites, and there seems to be no guideline against this. When I want to read a site in a language I don't know, I just use Google translation, and I expect that many people who don't read English use such tools; however, I also would guess that many (most?) internet users the world over do read English, though I'm sure that is also shifting. My point: it's a content question being enforced with administrative tools (in this case, on meta).

As to redirect sites, that's also an obvious exception, because they can (and would be) used to bypass the blacklist, easily. We could come up with a comprehensive list, I'm fairly sure, such that additional exceptions would be rare. Remember, I didn't want to resolve this at ArbComm! Nevertheless, a finding here does not suspend WP:IAR, it simply becomes a tad more difficult to abuse.

It may not be obvious, but I favor easy blacklisting when needed, combined with easier delisting and especially single-page whitelisting. One of the obstacles: once a site is listed, and if it is proposed that it be delisted and that there is no reason to believe that it will be again spammed, the argument is given: of course it's not being abused, because it's blacklisted! With lyrikline.org, the vast majority of links were being added by a single individual, who stopped when warned, was blocked anyway, and who, on de.wikipedia, actually started removing the links he had added. Nevertheless, lyrikline is a site that would be fairly hard to use abusively and it's beyond me why the many attempts to delist it at meta have been rejected. De.wikipedia, after being refused delisting, went ahead and whitelisted the whole site. Beetstra, here, whitelisted the English language interface, in response to my single-link request (a previous single-link whitelist request here had been denied, and the editor simply gave up, in fact, it was seeing this that led me down the trail of lyrikline).

Comment by others:

This combines principles, please keep it simple. This is better split in a principle like 'the blacklist is to stop abuse' (already above) and something like 'the blacklist is not for blacklisting of reliable sources' (also somewhere above, and well, it has been done already, blog.myspace.com was blacklisted for not being a reliable source, not for being spammed or added massively). Moreover, 'massive' is a) a judgement call, and b) links have been blacklisted which were not added massively (redirect sites).

No need to drag lyrikline into this, Abd. I don't know what you are trying to proof with that, except if you do an analysis of all regexes in this way. And what the blacklist is designed for does not have to reflect current practice. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I support this concept. The blacklist is a blunt instrument which should be sharply limited to prevent improper "mission creep" where it ends up being used to circumvent editorial decisions on individual articles and impose the viewpoint of one clique on everybody. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Suppport per Dan T. I think it's better not to split it as Beetstra suggests: to me, it's essentially a single concept, like "drink your juice in the kitchen, not in the livingroom". Abd's wording properly takes into account the fact that different editors will have different opinions as to what is a "reliable source". Beetstra, I think Abd is mentioning Lyriker as an example of a situation where the links themselves are actually good content, but blacklisting is nevertheless "proper" (according to Abd) because of the speed of addition of links without review and consensus; this illustrates the divorce between the definition of linkspamming, and content decisions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolution of recusal failure

2) When an administrator is found by the Arbitration Committee to have failed in a duty to recuse, and has acknowledged the error and is therefore reasonably considered to have understood the failure, and has assured the Committee and the community that the error will not be repeated, the Committee may reasonably decline to request the removal of administrative privileges. However, if this acknowledgment and assurance has not been forthcoming, the Committee may consider removal of privileges necessary until such time as it is satisfied that there is no serious risk of such failure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Stonewalling on a matter as serious as failure to recuse, and maintaining administrative privileges, are incompatible. --Abd (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not sure this is necessary. The Committee in practice may reasonably do anything to resolve the arbitration of a dispute. Codifying this seems a little restrictive for Arbcom, which needs to remain more flexible. Plus it is not entirely consistent with previous practice, as I expound in your proposed sanctions. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Fritzpoll. The "may reasonably refuse to decline" language implies that it would be unreasonable not to remove the bit if these specific conditions are not met. This ties Arbcom's hands too tightly. The "stonewalling" issue should also be weighed in light of WP:PARENT and WP:BAIT (this is a general point regarding the principle and may or may not apply to the present parties).Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur with concerns of both Fritzpoll and Short Brigade Harvester Boris. EdChem (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

JzG has not acknowledged involvement

1) JzG has not acknowledged that he was involved with Cold fusion and in dispute with Jed Rothwell.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This one would be easy for JzG to make moot, but until he does, it's far from moot. It's the whole point. --Abd (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This would need significant proof of a violation of WP:INVOLVED. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

JzG has not acknowledged his duty to recuse

2) JzG has not acknowledged that he had a duty to recuse and that he failed to do this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As with (1), above, this would be easy for JzG to make moot. The failure to acknowledge error was the sine qua non of the desysopping of Physchim62 and Tango. If those administrators had been willing to acknowledge that they had been involved, and had acted while involved, and that this was an error, they would likely not have lost their bits. --Abd (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

JzG desysopped

1) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. JzG may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Excessive and unwarranted, despite the prior findings and admonition (which I wrote). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have more detailed comments on this case in the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This follows inexorably from the principle enunciated above and found in ArbComm precedent (not binding, but sound) that failure to acknowledge error prevents the lifting of reasonable fear that the error will be repeated. JzG must have been aware of the duty to recuse from the prior admonishment referred to below, plus he has been given opportunity after opportunity to recognize and acknowledge it, yet, in the middle of the RfC over his very failure to recuse, he reverted and blocked an IP editor with whom he apparently had an off-wiki dispute. The idea that he would, ongoing, not repeat this error, is wishful thinking. He was previously admonished by the Committee regarding incivility, and it's unclear that his behavior improved, his incivility retreated to less blatant forms, but did not cease. (I am not suggesting that the Committee sanction JzG for incivility, but only that he was given quite a pass with the prior admonition; his prior level of incivility was such that ordinary editors would likely have been blocked for it, it was beyond the pale, and that he retained his admin bit was generous.)

JzG did not directly respond to the prior RfC, but created a page in his user space. He did not apologize for or acknowledge the incivility, but excused it. I was unable to find any place where he assured the Committee that he would not repeat incivility; during that prior arbitration, he also disappeared for a time, as he has with this.

I remain hopeful, however, that JzG will make this remedy unnecessary. --Abd (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

NYB:Understand that if JzG were to acknowledge the error, I'd agree that it would be excessive. However, without that acknowledgment, and with the action taken during the RfC, just a few days ago, I can't see any alternative that doesn't just try to sweep it under the carpet, which is getting lumpy. Perhaps the proposed principle above should be addressed first. --Abd (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Certainly not. Guy has demonstrated an excellent improvement in his behaviour over the past several months, and from the edit history of the article, has been uninvolved now for around 4 months. There's no need for such an excessive course of action. This reinforces the impression that Abd is simply out for blood, I certainly don't get the impression that this case has been filed to improve the project, but to try and further their position with regards to Cold Fusion. I certainly hope the outcome of this RfAr isn't to further anybodies position with regards to fringe science, but to make findings that improve the quality of the project. Nick (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought long and hard about whether or not to propose desysopping. My view is that if this is not on the table, JzG will simply do what he's done this time and before. Stop editing for a while until it blows over, modify his behavior a little. And look how much disruption it takes to address a recusal violation where the editor is popular with enough editors! There is, in fact, a pattern shown, with blocks (two, I think) after recusal issues were raised. And to me, a single instance of failure to recuse without acknowledgment of the error, given sufficient process to make it clear that there was, indeed, a failure to recuse, is quite enough for desysopping. Look how much disruption and wasted time would have been avoided if JzG had simply said, early on, "Oops! My bad. I won't do it again." A matter of seconds for him, and possibly hundreds of hours of editor time saved. And if he can't do this, as some of his friends have claimed (and, indeed, I would have considered him a friend before this came up), then this alone disqualifies him as an administrator. Hence I believed it was necessary to put this on the table. I will probably be personally satisfied with the proposed admonition, but I question the principle, and suspect that recusal failure is likely to happen again; in this case, though, the necessary disruption would be substantially less. It would be AE, not the whole nine yards of WP:DR. --Abd (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Given Arbcom's previously stated principle that desysopping generally follows from an unaltered pattern of problematic behaviour, this seems excessive, given the evidence that JzG has essentially said he would recuse from matters relating to Cold Fusion.

There are exceptions to this principle of Arbcom, the most recent from my memory being that of Tango, which has been mentioned to me specifically as such an exception. In that case, however, as I recall, the Committee was primarily concerned that during the case, Tango still didn't appear understand what the problem was - indeed the initial proposal was (from memory) for admonishment, not desysopping. In this case, it is not as clear that JzG doesn't understand the problem based on his stated intent to recuse from this area in the future. A logical conclusion would then appear to me to be that desysopping is an action reserved for any future case where a greater pattern of problematic behaviour can be established than has been by the current evidence. That is, assuming that Arbcom wishes to remain consistent with the aforementioned principle of sanction for demonstrable patterns of problematic behaviour. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll, how do you respond to JzG's block of an editor based on the editor's post of a (fairly mild) criticism of JzG in the RfC? This was just a few days ago. Suppose someone shoplifted an iPod. Would we be satisfied with evidence that the person wouldn't again shoplift iPods. Or would we look for evidence that the person wouldn't shoplift.? --Abd (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends: what was JzG's response when you politely enquired about it on his talkpage? Suppose someone shoplifted an iPod, and then said they wouldn't do it again in a believable manner. Do we parole them not to do it again and later prosecute them more harshly for further infraction, or do we lock them up and throw away the key because if we release them they might steal some headphones? I think this sanction is still based on forecasting rather than prediction - we need more evidence to reach the conclusion that we can predict a future where JzG is being an "abusive" administrator. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll, how much of this administrators' history have you reviewed? Have you read RfC/JzG2? As a general statement, though, the criminal analogy breaks down in that we are not talking about punishment at all. The point is that JzG has violated recusal rules, clearly, it's not marginal, and the behavior continued after plenty of notice from the community that he was considered involved. The promise not to "steal iPods" -- i.e., not to use tools with respect to Cold fusion -- is too limited; for it then requires the re-examination, with all the disruption involved, of all possible forms of theft. (i.e., failure to recuse.) We do not parole them, to answer the criminal question, unless we are satisfied that all forms of shoplifting are unlikely to recur, not merely the specific form. In this case, we do not trust them with the admin tools unless we are satisfied, on some kind of evidence, that they will refrain from the same kind of error that they have shown they are capable of making. This is proposed as a general principle, based on prior ArbComm decisions and just plain common sense. JzG was already covered by a general admonishment not to use tools while involved. Just a few days ago, he again used tools while involved, in a matter not having anything to do with cold fusion. No, I didn't ask JzG on his Talk page, because he's clearly not going to respond to me, he's not responding to much less involved questions. There is an ongoing RfAr about this, it's been asserted in evidence, and he could easily respond here, and it could resolve most of this arbitration. The community, by not confronting this, is doing what's called "enabling," which is very dangerous, it encourages the behavior that can eventually lead to an even more serious fall. If JzG wrote, about the block, "Damn! They are right, I should not have done that, I'll avoid it in the future," most conflict here would be over. Or, not so useful, perhaps, if he justified the block and showed that the appearance was an illusion. He can't claim the emergency exception, because he made no notice as emergency bypass of recusal would require. But stonewalling? No. --Abd (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure that the iPod analogy is on point here — it assumes that there was misconduct on JzG's part. (Though I certainly agree with the general principle Fritzpoll's comment implies.) A logged-out editor was conspicuously abusing the RfC process as part of an ongoing campaign to troll JzG. (Note for instance Special:Contributions/81.156.251.147, Special:Contributions/81.156.248.79. Four edits total, reverted by four different editors.) JzG applied WP:RBI. Everyone else moved on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason as TenOfAllTrades states, I am quite happy with the block performed. In terms of the recusal from Cold fusion, I maintain that you are right and, as I said in the RfC, it would be better if JzG recused aways from any appearance of impropriety. That is not at issue. JzG has not, as far as I am aware suggested that WP:INVOLVED is not policy or is not an appropriate means of conduct. He has, however, acknowledged that he should recuse from this particular area. In my mind, viewing the evidence, there is evidence to suggest that JzG has made a significant error in this particular area. But there is no evidence that I can see that suggests that this is part of a pattern of repeated misuse of the tools through failure to recuse - and recusal is, as you have said repeatedly, what this is all about. I suggest a "final chance" admonishment, reserving the right of Arbcom to desysop by motion if there is a recurrence. As to RfC 2 - I was watching it as it happened, and it focussed principally (as I recall) on civility issues, which are rendered moot by the evidence that his behaviour has improved. I will reexamine the old RfC and comment again if I find anything of relevance. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion is out of all proportion. No convincing recent examples of systematic abuse of tools have been provided. Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of proportion under the current evidence, no proof of systematic abuse, no proof of using tools while being substantially involved. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely inappropriate. JzG's positive contributions as a sysop far, far outweigh any negative ones. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree on content issues with JzG, and have no problems with many of his actions, so I really really really hope this isn't necessary. My concern is it still isn't clear to me that he recognises where he should have stepped back - and certainly where it would have been better to step back. When Abd and then Durova raised recusal issues, there was no suggestion from Guy that reflection was leading him to reconsider any actions, and I am concerned that his view has not changed. A simple clarifying statement from JzG could turn this proposal from regretfully and unfortunately may be necessary to definitely over-the-top, lesson learned, move forward. EdChem (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Stephen Bain

Proposed principles

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

1) Administrators may not use their administrative tools to further their own position in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Add the word "content dispute" so that this matches policy. Otherwise any editor who is warned for any reason will claim a dispute with the administrator who issued the warning. Jehochman ^Talk 14:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman's objection would lead to an inadequate remedy. What if an admin has a dispute with another admin over blocking an editor, or about some other issue, and blocks the admin? The full statement is quite correct. To interpret this as preventing an admin from blocking an editor who disagrees with the admin on a warning given is a misunderstanding. Ideally, the one warning and the one blocking should be different, but efficiency suggests that warning/blocking can be seen as the same process. "If you continue edit warring, I'll block you." Editor says "I'm not edit warring," does another revert, and admin blocks. Sure, it's a dispute, but not the kind of dispute that creates a need to recuse. Jehochman also seems to have a strange idea of how arbcomm findings are applied. They aren't applied by automatons, according to some ridiculous interpretation of the letter of the law. --Abd (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

example of how the community doesn't apply sanctions strictly when it makes no sense:

ArbComm prohibited ScienceApologist from editing articles on Fringe Science. SA made some spelling corrections. The community didn't notice them. So his friend Hipocrite went to AE to wave them in front of ArbComm and admins who might enforce the ruling. The AE report was closed as petty. It became apparent that there was a plan here to suck admins into blocking SA for making spelling corrections, the purpose was to make ArbComm, and any admin daring to enforce the ruling, look ridiculous. So, since that plan failed totally, the next effort was made. SA got permission from an arbitrator to make a substantial edit to a fringe article. He made the edit, and was blocked, the admin got plenty of egg-on-face, it worked perfectly. See, SA didn't disclose the fact of the permission where it would be seen, didn't add a note, for example, to the edit summary "by permission of [arbitrator]." In the end, though, the nature of the plot became quite obvious and SA was blocked. Hipocrite wasn't, though he'd done quite a bit to support the plan. No, there is no danger that the community would fall for an argument that an admin had acted improperly in the situation Jehochman described. The danger, is, in fact, that administrators seeing a mild sanction here will consider themselves safe from sanction and will act when involved, knowing that they can avert RfC/ArbComm by just saying "Oops!" and that even if they don't admit the error, and even if they continued after being warned about it, if they then simply shut up and don't respond, as long as they have a few friends and didn't block somebody really popular, they won't be desysopped. --Abd (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Where recusal comes into this (warning/block) is actually standard practice. If an admin does go ahead and block, the admin then recuses from ruling on an unblock request. (I've seen it happen, an example of failure to recuse; but, remember, there is always the emergency exception, where not acting could cause damage. I'll give an example of that, where full recusal (not using tools) actually did harm. See User:Abd/MKR incident. The admin should have immediately protected the page as closed, then notified AN/I and recused. The reason is that this was a case of abusive AfD and the nominator reverted the administrator closing based on abusive renomination, for leaving an AfD open causes editors to start to comment, and it then becomes difficult or impossible to close it. Had AN/I been functional, it would have been fine to go there, but, as we all know, AN/I isn't always functional. I think that those objecting to stricter statements about recusal often forget that administrators still have great freedom under IAR, including the freedom to act while involved, and that involvement in this case simply means that the admin then promptly puts up a notice of the action and recuses. As long as there is a reasonable claim of "emergency," the admin should be safe from being troutslapped over it, not to mention hauled before ArbComm with any chance of the case being accepted. Consider the first block of Jed Rothwell by JzG, December 18, 2008. He could claim, had he gone to AN/I and recused, that the editor's Talk:Cold fusion posts were disruptive and causing harm to other editors. Fine. However, in that case, the block would be for 24 hours, because that's plenty of time to get additional attention, instead of one month. Instead, he notified nobody (not even Jed Rothwell! -- who apparently didn't notice being blocked, as an IP editor on floating IP). And then he enforced the block by blocking other IP that wasn't Rothwell, but claiming it was; those edits were simply showing a similar POV. Similarly, he notified nobody about involvement re the blacklistings, which weren't an emergency by any stretch (there were no links being added at that time). It only came out weeks later. Recusal rules don't prevent any administrator from taking necessary action to protect the project, provided recusal is understood and requirements followed properly. And the emergency exception doesn't even need to be stated, it's WP:IAR. --Abd (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As jehochman says, this needs to be limited to content disputes. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Jehochman and Enric Naval, this needs to be narrowed down. This would now make WP:INVOLVED and, in a way, WP:3RR totally impossible, as this current wording would make any editor involved in a dispute with another editor on the first reversion, having to follow dispute resolution and having all to recuse from any further edits to the article (or at least to the involved parts of it). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to adopt the wording from the recent omnibus case, namely: Administrator tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute or, except in emergency circumstances or cases of blatant bad-faith harassment, in other disputes. Except for administrators' ability to use their tools to enforce policies on matters such as BLP or copyright violations, administrator status accords no special privileges in determining the content of articles. It seems to me this narrows the focus whilst also addressing Abd's point about non-content disputes. EdChem (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators not to act unless uninvolved

2) Administrators may not use their administrative tools in situations in which they are not uninvolved. An administrator will not be uninvolved, for the purposes of user-specific tools such as blocking, if they have a prior history of conflict with the affected user(s). An administrator will not be uninvolved, for the purposes of article-specific tools such as page protection, if they have previously substantively edited the content of the affected article(s).

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is not an exhaustive definition but it is (an attempt at) a comprehensive general definition. --bainer (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing the BLP exception. Also needs to be placed in positive language (i.e., "is involved" as opposed to "not uninvolved"). Risker (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ideally there would be a balance between handing off to other admins to deal with, and recognising when the definition of "involved" is being gamed. A balance between keeping admins experienced with a particular area active in that area, and opening the door to admins being driven off by accusations of being involved. My view is that the best balance is struck by those admins who are willing in some areas to take off their admin hat and get involved as an editor. Sometimes, strictly abstaining from using admin tools and only acting as an editor really can work. To all admins who "look after" an area as admins and then find themselves at risk of being burnt out, I would suggest editing other controversial areas as an editor to get a feel for what can be done without using admin tools. Learning to report things, rather than dealing with them yourself. The experience can then feedback into the admin work done elsewhere, and can be pointed to as an example of how you act when involved (for the benefit of those claiming you are involved when doing admin work). Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose - As soon as I try to control a disruptive editor, they will immediately claim there exists a conflict between me and them, and they will argue that I cannot use tools against them. WP:UNINVOLVED provides a clear exception for continuing administrator involvement in controlling disruptive users. This needs to be rewritten according to actual practice. ArbCom is not empowered to dictate policy to the community. You could just quote the relevant parts of WP:UNINVOLVED. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. -- WP:ADMINABUSE

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. -- WP:UNINVOLVED

I think you'd get better results by rewriting or mashing up the above two quotes. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. (though it needs some copy editing) The argument about "what if I warn an editor and they then argue that I can't use tools against them" is often raised in discussions of admin recusal, it's been raised many times before and generally, but perhaps not explicitly enough, rejected. Now that I have this bully pulpit, acquired at great cost and risk: Were I an admin, if I warn an editor not to do X, and the editor does X, what the editor has written to me or about me is irrelevant, I can block for X. However, if when I warn about X, the editor insults me, and I block for NPA violation or "disruption," or "trolling," that's action while involved. Wherever there would be an appearance of involvement, and certainly actual involvement, there should be recusal, which simply means that the admin asks for help, and I've seen many admins do exactly this, going to AN/I and stating the case, and normally they get quick response if the action is justified. In emergencies (this covers BLP), the admin may disregard a recusal obligation and act, but is then obligated to immediately recuse and refer (typically to AN/I). The immediate recusal means that any admin may revert the action without wheel-warring, taking responsibility for it. To pin this to immediate relevancy, there were no emergencies involved in JzG's actions asserted in this case.

Further, there was no immediate referral, and only referral in one case (a ban/block of Jed Rothwell), after being challenged, where no recusal or even the need for it was noted by him, i.e., the RfAr/Clarification filed by JzG and rejected by ArbComm, properly, as immature (cited in the RfC and my Evidence). The meta blacklisting may also be seen as a kind of referral, though forum-shopping; during the local discussion, which wasn't going well for his position, he went to meta where, as a blacklist admin there, he knew he would receive friendly and quick consideration that would overrule the local decision even if it went against him. He did not notify us of the meta process, nor did he inform the meta discussion that he was involved or that there was any challenge. --Abd (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

First sentence has triple negative (not * not * un). Simplify the expression by canceling the two nots. Ronnotel (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do this: Don't take this the wrong way, but this reads like it was written by someone who doesn't do much work in controversial areas. I make a real effort to be above suspicion with regard to tool use, but if this definition of "involved" is adapted, you may as well desysop me now. Saying that a "prior history of conflict" disqualifies an admin is a wikilawyer's dream. Understand that taking any administrative action against an editor creates a "history of conflict". Understand that simply being yelled at or abused by a disruptive editor creates a "history of conflict". Also be aware that if I edited a page substantively 6 months ago and it's being vandalized today, I won't hesitate to semiprotect it. We already have a vanishingly small (and shrinking) number of admins willing and competent to handle tough problems - if this definition is adapted, you would have to be completely insane to volunteer to administrate any controversial area. I see what you're getting at, but it is imperative that you word it more carefully. MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

An admin that has been enforcing wikipedia policies shouldn't be considered involved. Otherwise, you are going to run out of "uninvolved" admins in the most conflictive areas, as any admin with a few blocks and a few reverts of POV pushing is going to be labelled as "involved" in order to get rid of him. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the policy. Content policies are negotiated ("enforced") by ordinary editors, with well-known exceptions (WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP), both of which can be considered emergencies. (Note that the problem with alleged copyvio with external links is a separate problem and not an emergency due to the nature of the law. Emergency copyvio refers to actual hosting on Wikipedia of material that violates copyright. Links to suspected violating material is speculatively copyright violation, requiring a showing of intentional violation, a much higher standard, and if the assumption of no violation is reasonable -- not necessarily conclusive! -- there is no legal hazard). There is no known problem of "running out of administrators," this is specious, and requires interpreting recusal policy in a ridiculous manner. If it truly occurs that there aren't any administrators to handle a request from an involved administrator (the suggested alternate route), then the admin may be able to go ahead under WP:IAR, with proper notice and recusal, and, by the conditions of the problem, there is no administrator to undo the action, so it stands. This argument has been raised over and over in prior cases, and perhaps it's time for ArbComm to make a much clearer statement about it. Recusal is fundamental! Failure to recuse does continual damage, of a kind that can be difficult to perceive or measure, as editors go away with a conviction that Wikipedia is biased and oppressive. As to desysopping MastCell, I tried to keep this case much narrower than it has been, and maybe ArbComm is going to do that in the end, but ... MastCell is welcome to add himself as a party, I won't object, then he gets to place his comments prominently. I do note that some arbitrators wrote that the behavior of all participants would be considered, and, it's true: I'm worried about any admin who shows through comments a failure to understand recusal policy. I'm not aware of any violations of that policy by MastCell, though, and what he has described would not necessarily be a violation.

As to "administrating a controversial area," there is quite a problem with the concept of assigned administrators specializing in an area, it tends to produce disruption by itself even as it quiets some other forms of disruption. Rather, what controversial topics need are mediators who know how to facilitate consensus among contending factions. Were I an admin, and I were asked to attend to a problem area, I'd probably recuse, at least upon becoming informed enough to have an opinion about the content! And then I'd ask for help, which, as an admin, I'd know how to get immediately. However, any experienced user can do this; I can get a page protected, if I have a reasonable request, almost as fast as I could do it myself. I can likewise get a vandal blocked, similarly. Think of the RfC on Elonka. For that matter, to see the problems with failure to recuse in a matter close to home, so to speak, consider Durova. Durova suspected a sock puppet based on private evidence, evidence she could not disclose for some very good reasons,she specialized in this. She went ahead (after private consultation) and blocked the suspected sock puppet. I have some doubt about the ultimate truth or falsity of the sock puppetry charge, but the point is that she shouldn't have blocked because of recusal rules, if they are strictly interpreted. (She very quickly unblocked, forty minutes I think was all it took, and that was before the big flap). She was the investigator who came to a conclusion. She shouldn't have been the judge in the same case! I think that one reason Durova might be sensitive about recusal rules is because of her own experience. If she had recused, and simply allowed someone neutral to make the decision, she'd still be an administrator. Given the common attitude here about JzG, her resignation might not have been necessary, but she saw, I noticed at the time, that her admin bit wasn't worth the disruption to keep it, and that's one reason why I have such high respect for her, she placed the needs of the project above her personal power. In this case, JzG won't even admit the error or show consideration for the concerns, but has attributed it all to alleged content bias. --Abd (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That last is not true. Guy has, obviously, shown consideration for the concerns; after they were expressed earlier this year, he agreed to recuse himself from administrating cold fusion. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The "concerns" were about recusal, not about Cold fusion, and JzG has never acknowledged that he was involved and that he had a duty to recuse, he has merely smelled enough coffee now that he knows not to try it with CF-related matters again. What, exactly, is wrong with expecting an agreement about recusal, in general, rather than just about Cold fusion? "Honest, judge, I promise not to steal iPods ever again." "What about anything else," he's asked, and he says "I've got to go to the bathroom," and then is mysteriously missing. Does the judge say, "Well, he promised not to do what got him arrested, that's just fine, I order probation"? It took three months of work, much disruption, still not resolved, two MfDs, an RfC, an RfAr, and a specific (unfortunately misdirected) question from an arbitrator before the inadequate agreement was allegedly made. Does anyone else notice the elephant sitting here? I've probably said enough, or more than enough, there are some very, very smart arbitrators, and this will be in their hands. --Abd (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You say, dismissively, that Guy has "smelled enough coffee not to try it again". I might rephrase that as: "Guy received critical feedback and modified his approach in response." I still don't get it. Have there actually been any recusal issues since Guy stepped away from cold fusion 4 months ago? I mean, besides the one block of an obvious IP troll that you continually fall back on? If there are such issues, then present them in your evidence. If there aren't, then Guy's failure to say "Uncle" as loudly as you would like is hardly grounds for a federal case. MastCell ^Talk 04:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to read Abd's comments several times to see if he might accidentally have missed out a comma between "desysopping" and "MastCell". ADHD is not an excuse for this kind of snide innuendo, which could be seen as an attempt to silence criticism (also observable in the last RfC for JzG). The second and third instructions at the top of this page seem fairly clear: no personal attacks; no rambling responses. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't view it as a personal attack; I brought it up, Abd responded to my comment about being desysopped. No big deal. Rambling responses, well... :) MastCell ^Talk 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Not uninvolved"? :( Stifle (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Questioning of administrative actions

3) Administrators are accountable to their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. --Abd (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Spam blacklist is for spam

4) The Wikimedia spam blacklist provides a technical method for combating link spam. The blacklist is "intended as a last resort for spam which spreads across multiple projects, and which is pursued by multiple individuals or IP addresses" (m:spam blacklist/About, see also Wikipedia:Spam blacklist). To a lesser extent it is also used to combat malware links. Each Wikimedia project has their own local blacklist, for use against link spam affecting only that project.

As blacklisting is a method of last resort, methods including blocking, page protection, or the use of bots such as XLinkBot, are to be used in preference to blacklisting.

Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Re Jehochman, this is drawn from the policy/guideline pages here (Wikipedia:Spam blacklist) and at Meta (m:spam blacklist/About). If some current practice deviates from the existing policies or guidelines, then that practice ought to be changed. --bainer (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, policy is descriptive, not normative. How the editorial community agrees to do things is the policy. The written policy page is documentation. If the two disagree, then the written policy page needs to be updated. Jehochman ^Talk 05:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Deviates from actual practice and policy. Please read lengthy discussion at my proposed principal. Again, you have no power to rewrite policy to suit your tastes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Jehochman is half-right. Current practice has extended the usage of the blacklists, beyond what is written in policy, to prevent the addition of links upon content arguments, without a showing of a danger of linkspam sufficient to justify blacklisting according to policy. This extension is questionable. For example, copyvio. Small-scale copyvio is easily handled by individual editors (not just administrators), and, where necessary, bots. It's only a matter for the blacklist if there is copyvio linkspam. I.e., linkspam. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As an example, I added a link to the recently delisted newenergytimes.com to Cold fusion. It was reverted on the copyvio argument, and I had never investigated the copyvio charges with respect to NET. So I looked and found, indeed, there is a reasonable claim of copyvio; NET hosts certain important published papers on a claim of fair use, but does host the entire papers, making a copyvio claim at least reasonable (even if legally not established, for it is conceivable that NET would prevail in an actual challenge, but more likely, my guess, is that they would simply take down the paper); hence, I'm now avoiding linking to NET as a convenience link for such papers, which is unfortunate, but necessary. The situation was quite different with lenr-canr.org, which does claim, plausibly, permission from authors and publishers (and which doesn't have a copy of the paper I was adding a convenience link for! -- and certainly would, if permission could be obtained.) My point: there is no need to blacklist for occasional copyvio; edits can be reverted and editors warned or blocked if that doesn't suffice. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman is invited to cite the policy he thinks is being "rewritten." I couldn't find any reference to it. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Jehochman in the Arbitrator section above, sure, he's, again, half-right. when policy and practice deviate, policy should be reviewed and possibly changed. But maybe the thinking behind the policy was deeper than the thinking of a handful of administrators who are looking at only one side of the issue. And that is exactly what has happened. What is being suggested here is that those working with the blacklist have gone outside of policy in a way that enhances their own power to make content decisions, that places certain of these decisions in the hands of a small circle of closely-cooperating administrators who rarely reverse each other's decisions, even when blatant error has been made (sometimes) (and there is no independent Blacklist Review process). I'm willing to write more on this if asked, I've seen a great deal that I'm not yet approaching, including solutions; remember, I thought this wasn't ripe for ArbComm. I'm happy with a statement that separates content issues from blacklisting, though; and "content" should be generally construed: absent linkspam, even copyvio is a poor reason for blacklisting, as the policy would suggest. And with linkspam, content is moot! Hence the proper use of the blacklist is for preventing linkspam, which simply needs a bit better definition and some better procedures. Lack of clarity on this is doing ongoing damage, I see it every time I look at the discussions on the blacklist and whitelist pages, not just with matters I'm involved with. Sometimes I've seen something clearly enough, and had the time, that I've intervened, generally successfully, but I see quite a bit more than I take on personally. No claim is being made that the blacklist volunteers are bad editors or abusive, they work hard to protect the project and deserve our appreciation, only that matters have gotten, in some ways, a bit out of hand, and content damage that they don't see is taking place. --Abd (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Am I the only one seeing in m:spam blacklist/About this: "Domains hosting copyright violations, or other legally problematic may be blacklisted on a case-by-case basis, provided there is strong justification and consensus to do so exists."? That was one of the justifications for not delisting lenr-canr.org.

Also, it has been already pointed out several times by User:Beetstra that enwiki's policy is out of sync with the current practice in the blacklist (for example, in the evidence page he explains how the blacklist was used for abuse control measures). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, Enric, this is because meta is independent of en.wikipedia. Statements on meta pages have no authority over en.wikipedia unless we accept them. Meta can blacklist; we could set the software here to ignore the meta blacklist, I believe, but that would be foolish; however, we can whitelist any site to effectively undo the meta blacklisting. However, consider the meta guideline cited. Sure. I agree with it, in fact. However, note "case by case basis," and "strong justification" and "consensus." Then look at the discussion at the delisting request and see if that was followed. In fact, there is no known example of copyright violation at lenr-canr.org, even though it would be fairly easy to find -- and prove -- one if the charges made were true. There was substantial and knowledgeable dissent at the meta discussion to the copyright charge, as there has been here, even though Stifle, who apparently missed the previous discussions, is still making the claim. Beetstra's position is, and has long been, odd. He has acknowledged quite a few times that there wasn't sufficient evidence to block newenergytimes.com, yet claims of copyright violation are quite reasonable for some pages on that site (it claims fair use, not permission). He knows that there wasn't significant linkspamming for lenr-canr.org, if any. (He charges "linkspamming" or "possible linkspamming" from the normal usage of an SPA focused on the topic of cold fusion.) We need to stick, for the most part, with what happens on en.wikipedia. We have authority over that, with ArbComm being the "court of last resort" for normal issues here. Suppose there was linkspamming for lenr-canr.org, cross-wiki. Meta will blacklist. But if there was no linkspamming here, and there is legitimate usage here, we can -- and should -- whitelist, and what they decide at meta is only of interest as Stifle asserted with another case yesterday: have the issues addressed at meta been resolved? So, sure, we might look at a meta decision, but it has no authority here. --Abd (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The local guideline (not policy!) Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist indeed speaks of 'This should be used as a last resort against spammers.'. The content of that guideline is indeed not in line with its current use. Moreover, it is a guideline, hence 'It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.' (though 'occasional exception' is more frequent now, as links are very often not spam anymore, and is on a regular basis used to combat other types of abuse and possible abuse). As I presented here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG/Evidence#Use_and_abuse_of_newenergytimes.com, multiple editors, 3 (nondisruptive) 'socks' of the site owner (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG/Evidence#Site_owner_of_newenergytimes.com and WP:COI) and some IPs, and there have been several articles involved (I do not present that in the proof (I may expand on that), the 'cross-wiki aspect' not being of local concern here)' this would follow the requirements where page protection and blocking may not solve the problem (or give more/other problems as I suggested Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG/Evidence#Blacklisting.2C_blocking_and_page_protection_as_abuse_control_measures).

The question is 'is it possible that (an) admin(s) found the abuse of a kind that this should be used as a last resort?'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible. In an emergency. What was the emergency? Some possible ones in hypothetical circumstances have been listed: Malware. Linking to copyvio on a level such that Wikipedia is at legal risk under the theory of constructive violation (which has no relevance to lenr-canr at all). It isn't necessary to define these because they would all be allowable under WP:IAR. What was the "last resort" involved with JzG's actions? It was that the damn editors of the article didn't seem to get it that this was a fringe web site, run by a "kook," (JzG's choice of language) and kept allowing links to be added that would stay there for long periods of time, so JzG used his tools as a "last resort" to get them out and keep them out. And this was clearly abuse of tools. There was no emergency, no linkspam. Just normal addition of links by editors showing where they found a reference. Sure, the links might be improper in some way; that, in fact, has sometimes been correct; but it doesn't take admin tools to deal with it. --Abd (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the last sentence. Blacklisting is a valid tool against the use of links to copyvios, malware, and extremely unreliable (or partisan) sources. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Stifle's views show why ArbComm should probably make some statement on the use of the blacklist. --Abd (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Abd: Emergency Abd? You say it is only allowed to add links outside of normal process in an emergency? Sure, following the 'normal process' (if there is any) is preferred, but there is nowhere in the guidelines defined 'spam can be added at all time, but other links only in an emergency' (or something along those words). Here we try to define what the spam blacklist is for, in line with guidelines/policies and common practice. If JzG followed that is not a part of this proposed principle, the outcome of the principle may indeed influence further discussions on JzG. Please stay on the topic of the principle, Abd. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get why this is so hard to understand. Not "outside of normal process," we are talking about normal process here. I'm on the topic of the principle, the present instance was mentioned as an example. (very good idea to have examples when discussing principles.) The principle is that the blacklist is for controlling linkspam. Are there exceptions to this? "Emergency" means that you can do anything, just about, to protect the project. If the blacklist is for controlling linkspam, but you discover that some major web site has been hacked, and is hosting malware, you can blacklist it in a flash, even if you have a conflict over that site, hate the owner (or love him or are employed by him or are employed by a competitor), and no matter what the rules say. But, then, you would normally be expected to consult and, if appropriate, recuse. Now, the problem here is that the blacklist is actually being used to control content, i.e., to prevent the addition of content deemed "abuse" by some. Does "actual practice" mean that ArbComm should ignore this? It's circular: it's not in the guidelines, but we are actually doing it, so it should be in the guidelines. No, that's one possible outcome, but the other obvious one is that the community looks at the practice, which has been going on in an obscure corner of the project, chews on it a bit, tastes it, and spits it out. It seems that you have been saying that ArbComm can't touch the practice; but it involves the use of admin tools, and it thus gives an advantage to administrators over other editors, and this is something ArbComm has been very much concerned with.

It seems that you want, Beetstra, to continue the not uncommon, routine, non-emergency practice of considering content value when blacklisting, such that content deemed valueless is blacklisted even when there is no linkspam (the term requires some kind of large-scale addition). Some editors here have expressed the opinion that lenr-canr.org or newenergytimes.com are worthless junk, not reliable source, etc.; yet this is a content judgment and should not be made and enforced by a handful of administrators, and, in fact, you know that it's not true. You whitelisted a link to lenr-canr.org, and, by the principles involved with that one, there are quite a few more to follow. I have a request in for one, a seminal paper by Fleischmann. (For others not familiar with the history, lenr-canr.org hosts papers published elsewhere, it's a "library," claiming permission. Besides the old usage of the site for its bibliography, probably the best on the net, lenr-canr.org is not normally a "source," rather, the published papers are the source, and are cited as such. However, lenr-canr.org, as a site which goes to some considerable trouble to get permission from authors and publishers, is quite useful for convenience links, and that's the bulk of the usage; one might notice that JzG, in removing links, was mostly removing convenience links. That doesn't change technical compliance with WP:V, but it makes verification of accuracy to source far more difficult, and text cited to source that doesn't support it is a common problem in controversial areas like this, where editors often don't understand the sources. And beware, a farrago of false and misleading arguments have been raised over this in the past, and it's easy to jump to conclusions that aren't correct.) --Abd (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that is an argument I agree with: "Now, the problem here is that the blacklist is actually being used to control content, i.e., to prevent the addition of content deemed "abuse" by some.". But that 'what is deemed abuse' is a difficult thing to define, and we are getting in a very grey area there. What if JzG deemed this 'wide scale abuse'? That needs a proper discussion on both sides and on the relative scale and on the relative damage. And I do not believe that there are completely no link additions here which were not 'abuse' of the link, and I can't judge what JzG thought about this.

But, "It seems that you want, Beetstra, to continue the not uncommon, routine, non-emergency practice of considering content value when blacklisting, such that content deemed valueless is blacklisted even when there is no linkspam (the term requires some kind of large-scale addition)." is again not what I want, and is not a 'not uncommon, routine, non-emergency practice', though exceptions exist. I try to make my judgements better than that, and you know that I have, repeatedly, STRONGLY opposed this way of expressing my actions or thoughts, and of the actions of many people who regularly add regexes to the spam blacklists. This is not general practice. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Loci of dispute

1) There are two main issues in this dispute:

1. the presence of "lenr-canr.org" and "newenergytimes.com" on the spam blacklist, and
2. allegations that JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) took certain administrative actions while not uninvolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There are other issues. I would prefer a more inclusive statement. "Issues in dispute include:". Don't eliminate or minimize the possible existence of other disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't accurate as stated, it could be greatly improved. Jehochman is correct that there are other issues. Further, the presence or absence of a site from a blacklist is dangerously close to a content issue, I certainly would not have brought this to ArbComm at this point, and probably never. Rather, what ArbComm is tasked with resolving is, here, and as usual, behavioral issues. Neither site is, at this point, on the local blacklist, NET has been removed locally and was never globally blacklisted. Lenr-canr.org was locally blacklisted by JzG, that was challenged, and the discussion was closed with delisting, but on the conclusion, by Beetstra, that global blacklisting had trumped it. Local whitelisting of lenr-canr.org has not been pursued, except for individual links (one granted and two pending.). My plan has been to, if a few whitelistings show usability, to return to meta to request delisting. ArbComm does not have authority over meta, though my guess is that ArbComm requests would be favorably considered.

Johochman's request is reasonable, to list "issues in dispute," though it is also reasonable, perhaps as a separate finding, to separate mature issues (ready for ArbComm resolution or at least advice) from other issues that could, quite possibly, be resolved short of ArbComm. From my point of view, only one issue was truly ripe for ArbComm resolution: use of admin tools while involved. Most of the rest could be handled more efficiently at a lower level. It seems that the issue of the blacklist is now sufficiently mature to see some statement here, but that certainly isn't about the two blacklistings, it is about general blacklist practice and possible misuse of the blacklist to control content. Let's not confuse examples with principles. --Abd (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As long as Meta admins and editors don't feel en.wikipedia is playing Big Brother trying to strong-arm the other Wikimedia projects, they're pretty flexible and would be receptive to an en.wikipedia ArbComm request to de-list these domains if accompanied by an ArbComm finding there's not a copyright issue. If there is a copyright issue, then the domains are most appropriately blacklisted at Meta, not locally. That's because the American laws that underly our local rules (Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works) apply to all 700+ Wikimedia projects, given the Foundation's base in the USA. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think so, on both points. The copyright issue is one of alleged contributory infringement, which has been interpreted with such ferocity by some that, if we were to follow the argument, we would never link to anything without utter certainty that the hosting site owns the copyright or has the owner, and, as to permission, it's not clear what standard of proof would be required. Notarized letter from the copyright owner? It would be a huge can of worms. Instead, I aver, we should rely upon reasonable claims of use by permission, and as long as this isn't blatantly unreasonable, we are safe from contributory infringement, the case that is cited (I forget where) was of deliberate linking to blatant copyright infringement. The two sites blacklisted by JzG that occasioned this whole affair are actually different as to copyright status. Both sites host some material that they own, we can link to that, if editors decide they are usable, without any copyright question. However, both sites also host material that has been published elsewhere. Lenr-canr.org has a bibliography of over 3000 documents, I think. But only about 1000 have copies hosted there. The site owner has stated that he has copies of many papers that he'd love to put up, but he can't get permission. An example would be the recent paper by Mosier-Boss of the SPAWAR group (Yes, A.B., U.S. Navy), published in Naturwissenschaften. But that paper is hosted on newenergytimes.com. NET claims "Fair Use," but hosts the whole paper. (I did not know this when I requested delisting; I still would have requested it, because of other material there which may be usable, where they own the copyright or have permission, and because we should link to the on-line publication (fringe or not) because it's widely cited as a place to find information on the topic (it is accepted at this point as a See Also at Cold fusion, linking to an article I recently created); I've found NET invaluable for understanding news on the topic, and, yes, it has a POV. So do many web sites we link to, when they are devoted to the topic of an article and are prominent for that.) Hence I don't add convenience links to copies of papers on NET, because the likelihood of copyvio there has become too high. That doesn't mean that NET is breaking the law, for the exact boundaries are not crystal clear, only that NET has entered an area where, if they were charged with copyright violation, and they resisted, they could easily lose. What that would mean is also unclear; since they've been doing it for years, there may be considerations unknown to us. (The bulk of the material on NET is not copyvio, so NET doesn't fail WP:LINKVIO, just probably the particular pages that are hosted under a fair use claim but are entire.)

One of the problems with the website www.lenr-canr.org is that it makes some papers available for download without apparently having had permission from the publishers. For example in Jed Rothwell's library, a paper from Physics Letters A by Celani et al. from 1996 bears a clear copyright notice by the Publisher Elsevier. On the web I can access the preprint be going here and then downloading freely from the server at CERN here. But this is the preprint and not the published paper with the copyright marks of Elsevier which can be found at this link - www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFdeuteriumo.pdf (which cannot be displayed). The published article is available for purchase here on sciencedirect. These published papers can normally be accessed free through accounts linked to institutions with a subscription to the journal. In that sense there could be some problem with copyright issues, if, as seemed to be the case here, some of the pdf files on the lenr-canr.org site are not the preprints, and have therefore apparently been made publicly available without permission of the publisher. This to me could be a far more serious RL problem for wikipedia than any perceived virtual blacklisting by JzG, although I personally have no idea at all about this kind of legal issue. Jed Rothwell seems to have made the mistake of linking the published paper rather than the publicly available preprint. The self-published papers and editorial commentaries provide a different set of problems. (I have no idea for example about the quality of my colleague Biberian's contributions there; I have read in Le Monde about his activities as president of Elan Vital, when it was declared a cult by the French government.) Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Spam blacklist dispute resolved

2) Since the commencement of this case, the underlying dispute with respect to the presence on the spam blacklist of the "newenergytimes.com" site has been resolved ("lenr-canr.org" had already been removed from the blacklist on 10 January 2009).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noting that the first issue in the dispute has been resolved by the community, as it should be. --bainer (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The removal of lenr-canr.org from the local blacklist was technically a resolution; however, because it was removed on the basis of a global blacklisting, the effect has been that the issue remained open here (with JzG frequently asserting that his actions had been "confirmed by the community," the very opposite of what the proposed finding suggests.); I would have argued that the closing admin should have ruled on the substance, and, if the decision was that local blacklisting wasn't proper, should have whitelisted locally, which would have saved us all a lot of trouble; instead, a new whitelisting request might involve repetition of a prior lengthy discussion. There has been much attention paid in the blacklisting process to efficiency from the POV of stopping linkspam, but little attention to facilitating legitimate edits, which blacklisting clearly makes much more complicated, particularly for a web site which is prominent in its field. What can be said is that the community is in process in resolving the blacklisting issues, and will presumably resolve them without a ruling from ArbComm. This leaves, with respect to the blacklistings, only the administrative behavioral issue. If an administrator has blocked someone improperly, based on a personal dispute, that the individual is unblocked does not resolve the issue of action while involved. Routinely, it's resolved as soon as the administrator acknowledges the error, and it is de-facto resolved if everyone simply drops it. Neither have happened with respect to action while involved (blocks, blacklisting, article protection and deletion), which is why this is before ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a new development. I requested whitelisting of a paper of utmost historical importance for Cold fusion hosted by lenr-canr.org under a claim of permission (for a convenience copy, it's already cited, of course). I also requested, alternatively, whitelisting the whole site, there being no reason for blacklisting in the first place. (We can't delist here, as was done with newenergytimes.com, because the blacklisting is now at meta.) Stifle declined, citing WP:LINKVIO. There is no credible claim of copyright violation at lenr-canr.org, this has been extensively discussed.at Talk:Martin Fleischmann and Review of history re lenr-canr.org, prepared at request of John Vandenburg. The question is, will we need a lengthy discussion about copyright for each new link proposed? Main point here, though, the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org is not resolved, we are still dealing with the fallout of JzG's action. --Abd (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To update, Stifle clarified that he was rejecting the overall whitelisting of lenr-canr.org, and was recusing on the question of the specific link, thus allowing normal process to proceed. This is quite satisfactory for the moment. --Abd (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

lenr-canr.org was not removed because the dispute was settled, but because it had been added to the meta blacklist[4], so it was no longer necessary to have it here. The issue was deferred to the whitelist with the blacklisting at meta being specifically cited [5] and clarified that it was a meta issue [6] whole discussion --Enric Naval (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish to clarify that I did not "[recuse] on the question of the specific link"; rather, I could not reach a decision on it. Recusal, to me, indicates that one feels one could make a decision but for involvement or conflict of interest, which I don't. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, one can voluntarily recuse for any reason, including insufficient knowledge on which to base a decision. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

JzG's use of the spam blacklist

3) On 18 December 2008, JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) added "lenr-canr.org" ([7]) and "newenergytimes.com" ([8]), websites related to cold fusion, to the English Wikipedia spam blacklist. In both cases he used the edit summary "+1". In neither case did he comply with the requirement to log the additions at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log.

JzG started a discussion on the spam blacklist talk page with respect to "lenr-canr.org", saying "Adding now, and listing here for transparency", though he added the site to the blacklist less than a minute later. JzG did not attempt any other discussion with respect to the two additions.

On 8 January 2009, JzG initiated a discussion with respect to "lenr-canr.org" at the Meta spam blacklist talk page, as a result of which the site was added to the Meta spam blacklist on 10 January 2009.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Since there are two different spam blacklists involved, each reference to a blacklist needs to be specific to which one, and the names must be consistent. (Meta spam blacklist? Is that the MediaWiki one?) Risker (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. The Meta blacklist is the "global blacklist," and our blacklist is the "local blacklist." Our local blacklist, as a file used by MediaWiki, is in MediaWiki space. JzG cannot be faulted, of course, for requesting global blacklisting, though he probably should have disclosed both his involvement and the existence of his local blacklisting and dispute over that, which was pending locally. Because he did not, we may suspect that the decision to globally blacklist was a shallow one. Then, as I have often seen, later conclusions on blacklistings seem to be heavily weighted toward confirming earlier conclusions, with a strong showing of necessity to use links being required. The suggestion will be (not unreasonably, in fact) to whitelist needed links, which is what I've been doing. --Abd (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a huge hassle for one damn link, especially if I'm required to write the web site, get a copy of the permission if the site owner is willing to provide it, which I'm not sure I would do as a site owner, when I don't give a fig about Wikipedia, as is the case with lenr-canr.org, due to the history, and then write the author and publisher and verify; however, when this has been discussed in detail, it hasn't been considered necessary. I'm doing it because, with a few whitelistings, it is then much more credible to ask for whitelisting the whole thing, unless you want to see a new request every week! (lenr-canr.org hosts a good chunk of the papers that are cited at Cold fusion, everything he's been able to wangle permission for, and, as a reader, I can say that I very much appreciate those convenience links.) --Abd (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with the interpretation of the facts (JzG did add the links to the blacklist, he started discussions afterward, he did start the request on meta), but disagree with certain parts of the other wording which, IMHO, confuse rules, policy and normal practice:

1. The edit summary '+1' is used more and is certainly not uncommon, though often some of the links or a short description is added (see april additions to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, three other admins, me included, use the same notation without further explanation), and I am not aware of policy stating that we have to use the edit summary in an informative way (I agree, it helps).
2. Logging is deemed a 'MUST' (per [[MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, as (per 'if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found.', MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist) not logging may result in delisting if no valid reasons can be found. That is, however, not a failure to 'comply with requirement', merely 'not following normal procedure, which may have had as a result that the link was removed if no reasons could be found (reasons could here include other reasons than the ones that JzG meant as reasons, that is also not diclosed in the guidelines).
3. Not mentioning his involvement in the underlying Cold fusion dispute would not be a requirement for considering a request (I am admin both here and on meta, involved in blacklisting requests), here or on meta.wikimedia.org, it may have influenced the situation if declared and/or if found. Requests are evaluated on the abuse of a link or other problems with the link, as that is the main reason for which requests are granted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. This is mainly how I read the sentence, and I can read it in a way which is incriminating. 'JzG started a discussion on the spam blacklist talk page with respect to "lenr-canr.org", saying "Adding now, and listing here for transparency", though he added the site to the blacklist less than a minute later. JzG did not attempt any other discussion with respect to the two additions.'. My problem here is with the 'any other discussion with respect to the two additions', which may suggest that JzG did something uncommon, or even against established policies. I guess I will have to expand my evidence, but 'discussion' is not a requirement, nor a common practice for addition. Links which are deemed to be abused can be added to the spam blacklist without discussion. Seeing the April logs to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log shows that, though the majority seems to link to a request or discussion, many of the links are added without discussion (and I have not looked if the 'discussions' that are there are merely for transparency, or real discussions). It is common to provide proof or concerns in the log, as, as I stated above, items which do not link to any form of concern or proof may be removed without discussion if no proof or problem can be found when delisting is requested.

In other words, parts of this finding of fact seem to be based on what normal practice should be, or is deemed to be, not on what it actually is. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

JzG not an uninvolved administrator with respect to cold fusion

4) From time to time, since July 2006, JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made a number of substantive content edits to the cold fusion article (list), and has participated in a substantive way in a number of discussions on the article's talk page (list).

These substantive content edits include a number of edits, over the course of more than a year, removing links to "lenr-canr.org" ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) or "newenergytimes.com" ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

No judgment is made as to the substance of JzG's editing of the article, the simple fact of being substantively involved with the editing of the article is what is significant. --bainer (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Jehochman, the list of edits presented in the request for comment shows substantive content participation. I've copied it to the evidence page for easy reference. The examples in the second paragraph indicate specific involvement in the question of use of the external links, beyond general involvement with the article as a whole. --bainer (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Removing spam or reverting vandalism is not a substantive content edit. JzG claims that they were merely reverting spam. I think you need to employ finer judgment to show that they were not merely reverting spam if you want this to carry. Jehochman ^Talk 14:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Then put a few of the smoking diffs into the finding. At the moment you have a collection that includes some that appear to be innocuous removals of spam. I don't want to set a bad precedent here. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The links removed (at least the bulk of them, maybe all) were not "spam" or "vandalism" by any stretch of the imagination, rather, they were variously alleged to be fringe, copyvio, subject to fraudulent alteration, and whatever argument (misleading or not) could be found, and this was all repeated in miniature, though JzG edit warring, when a single link to lenr-canr.org was whitelisted and placed in Martin Fleischmann. The removals were content actions, of the kind that ordinary editors can and do perform. My Evidence does supply other diffs showing involvement, how many are needed? Note that "involvement" can include a strong POV expressed on Talk pages. In this case, though, both kinds of evidence are available, plus ample expression of such a POV expressed in many fora. --Abd (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm sorry, but I support the assertion the URLs added to the blacklist are utter crap that have no place in a reliable, accurate project, something Wikipedia aspires to. If you get an uninvolved administrator to look at blacklisting, with a subject like this, they're almost certainly going to be clueless - we need involved administrators who know exactly what can and cannot be permitted on the project, I'm sorry if that goes against all our policies, but they were certainly never written with this sort of fringe science, POV pushing nonsense in mind, and whilst it's not the job of Arbcom to write new policy, there is an urgent need for clarification and direction on how to deal with these sites and those who persist in adding citing these websites and this sort of material in scientific and fringe science articles. The reliability and credibility of the project is on the line here, and it's being put at risk because of vexatious litigation, the inability of Arbcom to deal with the issue once and for all, and the screams and howls from editors when someone who has half an idea there's trouble at foot, but might, just might be involved, actually tries to protect the project. Nick (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry too, but the above comment evinces an attitude that seems just as bad as the "truther" fringe / conspiracy theory elements you're against, and just as much on a "holy crusade" to make sure that only that which is "right" (by your POV) can make it into this site. You're arguing for a self-selected elitist clique to be empowered to make content decisions for everybody, unbound even by policy and procedure. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dan - the solution for appropriate handling of fringe issues isn't for admins to crusade as a self-selected elite. I am generally sympathetic to JzG's goals - as a scientist, I recognise the specious drivel claimed in some fringe areas - but that doesn't justify JzG doing whatever he wants. Bainer is correct that the evidence shows JzG cannot credibly be claimed to be uninvoled. Administrators can choose to be involved editors or they can act as uninvolved administrators - but once they are are involved in editing, they forfeit the right to use their tools as if they are uninvolved. Scientifically educated administrators are not prevented from tool use nor from using their knowledge of science, they merely need to ensure that they are not an involved editor nor in the middle of a content dispute. EdChem (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There's always going to be a self-selected elitist clique when it comes to scientific articles dealing with fringe theories - in cases like this, you're going to be restricted to admins who are physicists, chemists and laymen with a genuine interest in the topic; they're perhaps not involved with the dispute on Wikipedia but they can hardly be described as uninvolved administrators - they have the ability to analyse a source and determine if it's reliable and verifiable or not - you can either have administration taken by those with absolutely no idea of the subject, and you're going to get administrative decisions which are nice and follow policy, but which result in the articles being completely crap, in terms of their validity and people getting upset, or you can have administration taken by those with a good knowledge of the subject at hand and who can make educated decisions on the inclusion or exclusion of certain content. Then you'll get people on both sides of the argument getting upset, but the article will be more accurate as a result. You're never going to be able to alleviate these sort of content issues, there are always good educated people on either side of these arguments who strongly believe in their position, but at least if they're discussing the issue with someone who understands the science, then there's a chance of some more fruitful discussion, there will be a reluctance by the involved parties to try and pull the wool over the eyes of administrators and some of the more nonsensical drivel will be caught before it gets into the article and those editors who are only interested in pushing in fringe content (on both sides) are likely to be caught early on. Nick (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with Nick in this latest comment. Basically, articles are best edited by knowledgeable editors who have no conflict of interest, as advised mutually and by experts who often have a conflict of interest. All of these are likely to have POVs. Then, behavior is regulated by uninvolved administrators, and when an admin has a strong POV on an article, the admin should probably edit it (or stay away from it -- that's what Durova does), not administer it. Administrators, then, don't have to know the article topic, they need to know about edit warring and incivility and other behavioral issues. The problem comes when administrators regulate behavior colored by their POV on the topic, such as "this editor is pushing fringe," or "this edit is taking a ScienceApologist stand." "Fringe" and "anti-fringe" are POV judgments that depend on content judgments. Thus one of the most dangerous concepts recently invented is that of the "civil POV-pusher" as if there were something wrong with this. We need "POV-pushers," as long as they stay within behavioral norms, and attacking them for their "POV-pushing" just trolls for uncivil response. I haven't pursued DR on it, but the block of Jed Rothwell, who is without reasonable doubt an expert on the topic of Cold fusion, is one that, examined in detail, will fall apart. He is COI, and hasn't edited articles since 2006. He was clearly blocked for his POV expressed on Talk pages, and, in fact, the same admin blocked another editor for the same POV, with no other evidence. Rothwell, like many experts, is very opinionated, but, I believe, this could be contained if he were treated with the respect due his expertise (as we should treat all experts, such as Kirk shanahan, a peer-reviewed published author and critic of Cold fusion, with a strong POV). His advice is likely to be biased. That's why we ask COI editors to only edit Talk! Essentially, what is needed is better process for resolving disputes among good-faith editors with opposing POVs. WP:DR is quite good, but too often isn't used. It takes time, it takes patience, and sometimes it takes mediation with warnings and even blocks, but not blocks aimed at getting rid of an editor, but simply of preventing behavioral violations, and that's why such blocks must be done by neutral administrators, with the greatest of civility and careful and helpful invitation to participate properly in consensus process, not with accusations of "kook" or other provocations. --Abd (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To be clear in the other direction: I disagree with Nick that the solution to the problem is administrators who are scientists. If one is employed as a scientist, it can create a subtle COI. If one is a scientist, and has knowledge of the topic of the article, it's better if the administrator participate as an editor; an experienced administrator will also know how to facilitate dispute resolution, not as a supervisor waving the tools about, but as a participant who is truly seeking consensus and understands consensus process. And, again, too few administrators actually do. We've not really selected for it. --Abd (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The edits shown by Bainer here show that JzG here removes links to lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com, and is reverting a known (and later banned) POV pusher. However, the finding of fact says "From time to time, since July 2006, JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made a number of substantive content edits to the cold fusion article...". 'Substantive content edits' would, imho, be, changes to text, introducing new information, or rewriting old information, and (though I think that is more difficult to assert as content edit, it is dependent on how and what is actually removed) removal of content which is (deemed) superfluous, (deemed) false or (deemed) improperly referenced and hence unproven. Bainer here has not presented such diffs, and since there is just a list of all edits of JzG's edits in the evidence (which by the way may rip the whole context from why a certain edit was made, and may hence lead to false incriminations! Also, it hides the possibility that JzG was not the only editor (or even admin) on the article performing such edits). I still would like to see significant diffs (and not just one or two, we need substantive proof of content edits, where the content/meaning of the text is significantly altered, or the value of a reference is made nihil) where is shown that JzG is really involved in Cold fusion, not just cleaning up references or reverting a POV pusher. These edits show that JzG cleaned up (what he deemed) superfluous links, and reverted edits introducing such links he deemed superfluous, and reverting edits by a known (and later banned) POV pusher, which later resulted in blocks, page protections and blacklisting.

As such, I disagree (with the evidence presented) with 'JzG not an uninvolved administrator', no evidence of being involved is shown (unless we want to establish here, that if an admin is first reverting a vandal and then blocks the vandal, is first editing an article removing links (or reverting a spammer) and then blacklisting the link, or reverting ongoing long-term POV-pushing or vandalism to an article and then protecting said article should in all cases recuse from the admin action after the edit, and that the failure to recuse should result in removal of the admin bit). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra displays a disturbing inability to see the forest for the trees. Nobody has independently examined the evidence and concludes that JzG was not involved, that's why we see comments from his friends that "maybe, sorta, I suppose, he wasn't the best person to take these actions." 140 Talk page edits? Enforcing what? Removing convenience links, with no credible evidence that they were altered copies or illegal linkvio (strong standard!)? Beetstra (and other blacklist admins) have displayed a quite strong opinion that convenience links are fluff, not necessary, not even "content." JzG/RfC 3 should be reviewed, it is not necessary to repeat everything here. The removals of weblinks weren't administrative actions (except that, had the blacklistings been proper, it would also be necessary to remove the links, but Jzg knew that the link removals would be controversial, he just imagined that editors concerned would have to "stuff it," because they couldn't do anything about it. He thought), they were content actions, and they are a fraction of his edits to Cold fusion. I also urge reading the original discussions on Jehochman talk and JzG talk, and consider if JzG's response was civil. Not obscene? Yes, he improved. JzG's edits, if anyone cares, show not only strong POV involvement (which suggests recusal even if an admin hasn't edited the article), but it shows the origin of this, with his friend. The bulk of the edits had nothing to do with enforcing behavioral guidelines, but with asserting a content position. And we know that Beetstra doesn't understand this, his "evidence" for "abuse" of links shows nothing but content POV judgment, the very kind of judgment that admins should keep away from (just as ArbComm will keep away from), and this, indeed, is why the statements of principle should avoid "abuse" but stick to behavioral evidence for blacklisting linkspam. Beetstra knows, he's stated it many times as if it wasn't understood, that linkspam has nothing to do with content, that excessive addition of links ("linkspam") leads to blacklisting -- and properly so -- even if every addition is good content, not abusive in itself. And there was no linkspam, so defined, only a pattern of links, over a long time, under heavy scrutiny, and thus utterly inappropriate for the blacklist. --Abd (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

True, Abd, there are quite some trees there, but I am only interested in solid oak. The question here is, is JzG involved. If diffs are presented which can be explained as '... i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like...', then, per WP:INVOLVED, the proof of involvement is not very strong. For the rest, Abd, as usually, you assertions are not mine (I have not said "convenience links are fluff, not necessary, not even "content"). Also 'which suggests recusal even if an admin hasn't edited the article': recusal is about involvement, indeed, there are subjects where admins should recuse even when they haven't edited, but here we want proof about being involved. And I don't think that admins should stay away from content issues, we are just editors, Abd. And we have been discussing 'linkspam' over and over, and I have already explained over and over that on a regular basis links are added which are NOT linkspam, but nonetheless abused. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we get it, Beetstra. Actual practice is precisely what is being considered here. Is this actual practice harmful to the project? There is no doubt that linkspam is subject to blacklisting, but what about "abuse" other than linkspam? There, the question becomes, as is clear from the guidelines, whether or not the blacklist is the best way to deal with this "abuse." The issue is really one of degree of hazard. Sources are used improperly, what you'll call "abusively," all the time, it's routine. And it is routinely fixed without admin tools. "Abuse" is being used, routinely, in this case, to refer to links to "fringe" sources, or sites that are allegedly unusable as reliable source. However, actual interpretation of the requirements of WP:V (policy) and WP:RS (strong guideline) is up to editorial consensus, and using admin tools, like the blacklist, takes the decision away from the involved editors, the ones who know the issues, and puts it into the hands of administrators who make decisions based on some overall concept of source usability, frequently based on an impoverished view of what sources can be used for. The claim being made here is that this is abuse (possibly subtle) of admin privileges (though not reprehensible unless it continues after ArbComm clarifies this). If there is linkspam, yes, usability becomes an ameliorating factor, this is where consideration of it may be relevant, but, as you know, my long-term proposal on this is that delisting and whitelisting decisions be separated from blacklisting decisions, with more input from the community solicited for the removal discussion, and decisions by admins that don't do routine blacklisting, because the blacklist admins tend to develop a too-firm negative opinion of sites, and to justify, long after necessity, continued blacklisting to avoid any risk of linkspam, in some cases long after any apparent risk has passed. This is not the time or place to address this; right now, the most important point is to establish that usage of content arguments for blacklisting should be prohibited. Not necessarily all content arguments, but ones of the nature we have been examining, where editors might reasonably disagree. You may want to use the blacklist to control content "abuse," but the community, where this has been considered, has come down pretty strongly against it. --Abd (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nick raises a good point about clueless admins with his comment above (at 22:41, 3 May 2009 UTC). I've studiously stayed away from discussion of these cold fusion links' value because I don't have the background on this topic to evaluate their credibility. I am aware that after the collapse of the whole cold fusion movement, some thoughtful, smart civilian physicists working for the American Navy thought there was indeed something odd going on and worth studying but I haven't kept up with their work. So while I am skeptical, I hardly have a closed mind. I'm no physicist, but I have some physics training and I'm confident with enough effort (10 to 30 hours) I could get up to speed on cold fusion controversy at the level of educated layman. Then with many more hours of pouring over the extensive record of the cold fusion/fringe science/cold fusion links history here on Wikipedia, I could do a credible job as an admin on this one. But I don't have the time or the interest. There aren't many topics I'm unwilling to work as an admin but this is one of them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, admins use their tools all the time in content disputes -- AfDs. In fact, a prospective admin's competence to correctly handle AfDs is probably the most significant aspect of most RfA discussions. Properly done, the admin that deletes or keeps an article is just neutrally executing the consensus of the participants in the discussion (unless it clearly violates our policies). So while the blacklist is rarely used for content issues, I see no reason in principle why it can't be used that way based on clear community consensus as to a domain's suitability.

"Spam blacklist" is a poor name (it's pejorative for starters) and everyone from Jimbo Wales on down has talked about changing it; I gather there are some technical issues that have deterred doing this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, A.B. Closing an AfD is actually problematic, an area that probably needs more attention. To get it out of the way, discussion closures are a special case where there is prior community process. The theory is that an uninvolved editor reviews the arguments and !votes and evidence and comes to a conclusion himself or herself, then expresses that in the close and implements it. Because non-admins can't delete articles, delete closes are considered limited to admins. That is actually, in my view, a defect. It's an example where content issues are considered by admins, but only after a discussion. Note that I disagree -- strongly -- with your view that a closing admin is simply "neutrally executing the consensus of the participants," and that actually contradicts the first thing you said, that the admin is "using tools ... in content disputes." The admin would be using tools to implement community consensus, but that's actually not what admins should do, they should only make closes which they personally support, and I won't explain why here. Further, when an admin closes an AfD, the admin is then automatically recused for review, because making the decision, on content, then creates involvement. In my view, the implications of administrative decision after discussion have been inadequately considered, and this is part of the reason why there is so much conflict over AfD and other closures (and there are other reasons).

Sure, if there is clear community consensus for it, which requires discussion, A.B., the blacklist could be used for about anything. But that is, then, the community making an editorial decision regarding content, not an administrator as such. I would have delisting and whitelisting decisions be made by editors or administrators who are uninvolved with the original blacklisting, and, in fact, with blacklisting in general, because it has become clear that there is inertia, hysteresis, in the blacklisting process that makes it, too often, quite difficult to get blacklisting lifted even when there is no longer reasonable fear of linkspam. There is, for example, no reasonable fear of linkspam for Lyrikline.org, but it is still meta blacklisted, in spite of multiple delisting requests. The reason is basically, if you look at the arguments, "the original decision was proper." Which is true, and which has no bearing on the continuation of blacklisting. When editors and administrators become involved deeply with antispam efforts, I've been told by one admin who was, and I see it, they tend to develop a battlefield mentality, see the image on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam of a battleship. "Spammers" come to be seen as "enemies" of the project. And the best way to "get" the spammer is to punish the web site (it is actually threatened in some of the templates that pagerank will be harmed by blacklisting.) But, as we know, the addition of good content, if done by adding many links to a site, is considered linkspam, so we end up (in such cases, by no means is this the bulk of linkspam) defining good-faith editors as "spammers" and as creating damage. And that's what happened with lyrikline. (Beetstra has hinted that IP evidence shows that the editor doing this had a COI, but that doesn't change the fact, it's actually irrelevant to the content.) So I would allow antispam volunteers to blacklist in haste, and then the community can delist at leisure, there is little harm if a site is improperly blacklisted for a few days, or even longer, and the common practice of removing all links upon blacklisting could be replaced with removal only of apparent spam (irrelevant) links, leaving possibly legitimate links in place, with those specific page links being whitelisted. (or there are other options). (You cannot just leave links in place when a site is blacklisted, unless the links are whitelisted, because the blacklisted links then prevent saving any edit that contains them, and with some long articles, and a whole-article edit, it could be quite difficult to find what link was involved, the message doesn't say.) Whatever is done should be easy and efficient and respect the right of editors to determine content while at the same time allowing administrators to efficiently prevent linkspam, which is a huge behavioral problem, with SEOs and IP editors from Uganda, etc., placing links all around the project. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Abd Note that I disagree -- strongly -- with your view that a closing admin is simply "neutrally executing the consensus of the participants," and that actually contradicts the first thing you said, that the admin is "using tools ... in content disputes." The admin would be using tools to implement community consensus, but that's actually not what admins should do, they should only make closes which they personally support, and I won't explain why here. Further, when an admin closes an AfD, the admin is then automatically recused for review, because making the decision, on content, then creates involvement. This argument is seriously flawed. Evaluating consensus in closing a discussion, including considerations of policy issues, is not a content decision that represents the administrators view. If an administrator believes that the present consensus is wrong, they can join the discussion, point out policy considerations that have been missed, etc... but they should not be substituting their own opinion. Claiming content involvement based solely of an AfD closure is just another opportunity to wikilawyering and disputation and forcing recusal in unreasonable circumstances. It is exactly this kind of reasoning that leads some administrators to not take recusal as seriously as they should. Additionally, the fact that administrators can and do close discussions where the consensus goes against their personal view is evidence that are remaining uninvolved. Abd, whatever you may think common practice should be, the issue is what present practice actually is - and present practice does not automatically create an involvement conflict of interest from a discussion closure. EdChem (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actual practice varies. I said I wouldn't go into the particular point about "personal support" now, and I'll stick to it, it's insufficiently relevant here. I agree with some points above. As to what I called "automatic recusal" by closing, EdChem, I've seen a close of an MfD for a WP space proposal, as "Keep as Rejected", and then the DRV protesting this close, was closed by the same editor. What do you think happened? Do you think an admin who closes an AfD can then close a review? Or is this admin considered recused from that? Suppose an admin closes an AfD as Keep. There is then another AfD. Can the same admin close the next AfD as Keep? Sure, if there is clear consensus, it might happen and nobody might care enough to say Boo! However, if there were controversy.... not a great idea. Ed, you seem to claim that my description is just how I think it should be, and you might be right, but then you describe how you think it should be, and your description is no more accurate than mine. I.e., opinion and interpretation varies. 'nuff said, maybe too much. --Abd (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Prior admonition

5) In September 2008, in the C68-FM-SV case, JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), along with all other administrators involved in the case, was generically admonished and instructed to "avoid... use of administrator privileges in disputes as to which the administrator is, or may reasonably be perceived as being, involved in the underlying dispute". However, that admonition was not directed specifically at JzG (see relevant finding of fact).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Indeed, that element of the admonition was primarily directed at a different administrator, but it is relevant to note briefly here. --bainer (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support.While the admonition was not specific, JzG, as the subject of a finding in that arbitration on his incivility, may be presumed to have seen it. Further, ample attention was called, in early January, as well as at other times, to his use of tools while involved in matters related to Cold fusion, and he has yet to acknowledge that he was involved. Fundamental to recusal policy is the ability of an admin to recognize his or her own involvement; if an admin cannot do this, then possession of the tools by such a one is an ongoing hazard, and the admin should be desysopped upon a showing of unapologetic use of tools while involved, unless mitigating circumstances exist (such as an emergency followed by immediate prominent notice, typically at AN/I). It's important that this not be limited to actions with respect to one article or dispute, or the problem will simply appear elsewhere and require disruptive process to fix. I've come to the conclusion that if JzG cannot acknowledge the error, for whatever reason, even after all that has come down, he can't continue as an administrator, but this is entirely up to ArbComm and I will accept the committee's decision in any case. Desysopping JzG has never been my goal. Clarifying recusal policy and applying it was, from the beginning, my purpose, and the record shows that. --Abd (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Remedy 3 from C68-FM-SV states that [t]he Committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. Consequently, JzG is already under threat of further sanction. If the prior admonition is to be noted, should not also the prior remedy? In fact, it might have been possible to keep this case much smaller had Abd (who I recognise did not initiate the case) made a motion under the omnibus case for a further sanction of JzG. EdChem (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

JzG admonished

1) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is specifically admonished not to use his administrative tools in a situation in which he is not uninvolved, nor to use them to further his position in a content dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support- miminally If JzG acknowledges the error before ArbComm begins voting on proposals, this is, indeed, my preferred remedy. I think, however, that if desysopping isn't on the table, JzG is unlikely to do this. I'd love to be wrong on that! I do wonder about the double negative. Why not just in a situation where he is involved, and why not add what recusal policy requires or should require, or where involvement is reasonably likely to be perceived, or is reasonably alleged, absent emergency. It's important that emergency use be allowed, followed by immediate notice and recusal, or all the familiar objections will be raised. Note that "emergency" was not a reasonable excuse in all the alleged instances of recusal failure. It's not absolutely necessary, because WP:IAR isn't dismissed by any ruling or finding. So JzG could still protect an article to prevent a BLP violation, as an example, even if he has high involvement, as long as he immediately and openly recuses from further non-emergency action, allowing any admin to reverse without conflict, and he notifies the proper noticeboard. Note, as well, that a "reasonable allegation of involvement" does not require the admin to reverse the decision, by, as in the example, unprotecting the article, but simply requires the admin to step aside to allow decisions to be made unhindered by other administrators. --Abd (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll's version below is better.--Abd (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would like to see something stronger, but remaining short of desysopping. It is important that the measure is loud and clear to JzG that recusal is a serious matter, and one where desysopping is possible. Perhaps a note that evidence that tool use in a non-emergency situation where recusal was appropriate can be grounds for desysopping as a motion pursuant to this case? In other words, making it clear that failure to recuse in the future can be actioned without a full case being required, and without proceeding through a series of WP:DR steps. I am thinking of the possibility of another action being taken, a challenge being taken to ANI, and being endorsed as an appropriate action by consensus (3:1 support, say) without the conflict / recusal issue being considered. EdChem (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not feeling anything stronger than this. Compared to others of the "abusive admin cabal", JzG has learned from the changing norms and concerns of the community when they are presented in a clear and unabiguous fashion from people who belong to the community, not the single purpose trolling nutters who rant for blood at every percieved slight. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Like who? Is there an "abusive admin cabal?" I think there are some abusive administrators. They cooperate with each other, sometimes. Sometimes not. Is this a "cabal?" And who is "trolling," who is a "nutter," who is "ranting for blood," and what is an example of a "perceived slight" that isn't an actual one? --Abd (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Fritzpoll

Proposed principles

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

1) Administrators may not use their administrative tools to further their own position in a content dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators not to act if involved

2) Administrators should not use their administrative tools if they are involved. Involvement means substantial edits to an article in the case of article-related tools, and prior disputes with users in the case of tools such as blocking. Involvement specifically precludes interactions that are solely in an administrative capacity, including but not limited to the resolution of disputes or the enforcement of policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - may be partially redundant with 1). Fritzpoll (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The text linked by WP:INVOLVED uses wording like 'may', 'not required to', 'there is doubt', 'personal motive may be alleged' (as part of policy). I do see that JzG has performed quite a number of edits to Cold fusion and related articles, but I have not seen hard proof of 'personal motive may be alleged', or a large number of edits outside of '... (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias,...'. But as this principle also uses should, I agree, maybe with a bit more stress on the first 'should'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is about compromise

3) Dispute resolution is a two-way process. At all stages, all parties should attempt to reach a compromise and be willing to acknowledge errors and mistakes made in the area under dispute or in the pursuit of a resolution itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. But caution: "compromise" can sometimes be inappropriate, where principles are clear and important. Dispute resolution provides for ample notice to a party that their position is untenable if taken to the extreme. For example, if I disagree with an admin's AfD closure, I can ask the admin to reverse the decision. If the admin refuses, I can go to DRV, but there is a sometimes less disruptive path open through DR: seek informal mediation (because of the easy availability of DRV formal mediation would make no sense.). Now, if I can't find one editor to support my position and to intervene or attempt to mediate, that's my answer. I might then compromise and ask the admin to userfy the article for me, if I don't think DRV worth the disruption (and if I can't find one editor to help, how likely is it that a DRV nomination would be successful? Most admins would agree to userfy.

In order to bring this case to ArbComm, I had to first attempt to negotiate a resolution on the recusal issue directly. That failed. It's not clear what compromise proposal would have sufficed, JzG wasn't willing to budge except on one matter, the deletion of Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science -- where he knew, I presume, that this would have been a pushover at DRV, so he recused and allowed Sarcasticidealist, as I recall, to undelete. So I started laying the groundwork for further process. JzG got lots of notice what was coming, and that was deliberate; I was truly reluctant to file an RfC. In order to file that, I needed certification from another editor. Again, if my position wasn't tenable, that would have been difficult to find (or I'd have had to be content with a certifying editor with an axe to grind, a different problem. Was the matter important? It appears that ArbComm is going to rule that it was, in fact. (But most arbitrators have not shown any opinion yet.) Two-thirds of those !voting at the RfC were raking me over the coals, and many of them showed up here to try the same. Should I have compromised? I don't think so. The whole point of dispute resolution process is to provide for minimally disruptive process for resolving disputes without requiring editors who aren't satisfied to simply shut up and go away. If my position had been untenable, I'd have found out: instead of seeing two-thirds of editors ignore the evidence and the actual RfC filing and focus on the messenger (me), I'd have seen the substance addressed, my support would have evaporated, and I've have been shown quite thoroughly how mistaken I was. Instead, I just saw many editors willing to make themselves look biased and foolish, some of whom have continued that right here. A few editors took intermediate positions, such as Jehochman and Fritzpoll, and I have great respect for that. --Abd (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, but possibly needs copy-editing. This is intended to address both parties of this dispute; both sides need to be open to criticisms - of both the substance of the dispute and conduct during it - and respond accordingly Fritzpoll (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

JzG was involved

1) JzG (talk · contribs) was involved on the Cold fusion article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

By the definition in my proposed principle 2), I can't see how the evidence avoids this conclusion. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see significant proof of edits outside of '...(i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias,...' (WP:INVOLVED). Was JzG really involved. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you add some diffs. This is essentially the same request as I posed to Stephen Bain above. The three most substantial edits would be sufficient for me. Jehochman ^Talk 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

JzG has made acknowledgements

2) JzG (talk · contribs) has agreed not to use his administrative tools in the Cold fusion article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per Jehochman. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd has confrontational style

3) Abd has received feedback from individuals and the community at large that his approach to dispute resolution has been excessively confrontational

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Recuse. However, yes, I have received such feedback. And I have also received feedback that what I was doing was necessary, and some on the level, mostly off-wiki, of "At last! Somebody has had the guts to stand up to JzG!" I listen to all of it, and do not assume that any of it is conclusive. --Abd (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. We cannot ignore the feedback of the RfC on JzG where a lot of feedback related to this. This fact is also apparent from the evidence presented. Note that this explicitly says nothing about the goodness (or otherwise) of Abd's intentions - I hold that since we assume good faith, we cannot prove it either way and don't need to. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear there is an intent to add diffs to support such a statement. I am concerned that "confrontational" may be too loaded and harsh a term. Perhaps "... has been overly legalistic"? Obviously, Fritzpoll, you need to choose a term that captures what you mean, but my observations of Abd would not lead me to describe him as confontational. EdChem (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Choosing the correct words for the proposals with respect to Abd has been difficult. I quite admire the motivation behind some of his work, but I think the vehemence of the reaction to his involvement in disputes not just here but in other instances is indicative that he needs to take at least some commentary on board and to adapt to it. For example, the need (like it or not) to be concise enough in the early stages of DR to not appear intimidating, to stay on topic, to not mention Arbcom from the get-go, to not appear to threaten all and sundry with Arbcom when they appear to disagree - all things that I have seen people comment on (diffs forthoming). I think Abd could be very effective in this arena, but the way he conducts some of this actually hinders the resolution of the dispute he is involved in. I will adjust these accordingly, as in my pursuit of concision, I appear to have rendered some harsh proposals. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me help. "Assertive." It could be said that I cut my social teeth at CalTech, where frank and direct expression of disagreement was the norm. When I'm exploring a topic in writing -- any topic -- I tend to express what I think as if it were a fact, and people can mistake this for arrogance. What's more accurate is that I'm a dialectical thinker, I think by asserting A, then not-A, then holding both ideas at the same time. Many people can't follow this, they expect someone to have a point and to, well, push it. Instead, I assert points, to see how they look, to see what response comes, and then to compare with the opposite or with other points of view, the goal is an integrated view, that considers all sides. If you were to watch my writing on a narrow topic over time, you'd find that the dross falls away and I become clearer and clearer. When I saw the blacklistings, I saw, very quickly, that JzG was involved, it took very little looking. I saw, immediately, the incivility, I commented on it at Jehochman Talk. Put those together, he was an involved administrator, pursuing his own agenda. So I said so! I was civil, I didn't accuse him of bad faith, just of the fact. I had no axe to grind; at that point, if you had asked me, I'd have probably said that cold fusion was found to be bogus twenty years ago (and I knew more about the original research than most); further, I'd had positive interaction with JzG, he'd been helpful. Someone else, perhaps, would have had the skill to approach him in such a way as to not raise his hackles. On the other hand, dammit! Where was this other person? I tried to find him or her for months, that's why this whole thing got so "stale." I've had occasion to stand up for some point when all my friends were yelling at me. And years later, they'd say, "You were right, we couldn't see it then." I didn't blame them, it was true: they couldn't see it, and I knew that. This does not mean that I'm right! It just means that sometimes I am, and I'm willing to find out. (It cuts both ways, I certainly have stuck my foot in my mouth plenty of times, but .... that is absolutely the fastest way to learn: be wrong. --Abd (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

JzG strongly admonished

1) JzG (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished not to use his administrative tools in areas where he is involved. He is also advised that further incidents such as this may be referred to the Arbitration Committee for a further case or for a desysop by motion of the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support conditionally. This is better than the weaker version proposed by Bainer. I would still want to see an acknowledgment of error as a condition; I just don't see how ArbComm can issue a pass on a failure to recuse without an acknowledgment of error, without seriously damaging the importance of recusal and the seriousness with which administrators should take it. From one incident. No matter when it was. (Obviously, we wouldn't go back and dig up old stuff, but most admins would say about old stuff if it did come up, "I sure wouldn't do that now." Which totally covers the problem!) (And remember, this is one incident which caused -- if it could result in desysopping -- such disruption that it made its way to ArbComm and was accepted.) It's an error to require a pattern of behavior in such a case. Pattern would be required to desysop even if the admin acknowledged the error, if the admin had previously acknowledged similar error. Basically, admit it, and even with a "first-offense pattern," you get one free pass, maybe with an ankle monitor. You also get to make occasional mistakes even after that. But not a pattern of mistakes. --Abd (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Fritzpoll: Two considerations: first, Fritzpoll's proposed remedy is second-best, in my opinion, i.e., better than mere admonition. Secondly, however, the expectation that we can't expect better from JzG should be, if examined, grounds for desysopping all by itself. EdChem correctly pointed out that grovelling is not required. All that is required, I'd suggest, is that JzG show that he understands the problem and undertakes not to repeat behavior that is now, more clearly, defined as seriously improper. Further, there is another possibility: desysopping with the understanding that JzG can recover his tools if he assures the Committee (at any time) that he gets it. Standard desysopping seems to always include the possibility that the tools can be recovered by application to the Committee, which is relatively nondisruptive and can even be done privately. This, however, would clearly establish that use of tools while involved is a serious matter, not trivial, and not justified by being "right," absent emergency followed by appropriate notice and recusal. --Abd (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bit sloppy in wording - may try to tighten up. I think this is the best compromise available - we are not at the stage of desyssopping, but admins acting while involved is not a good thing. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Abd: I think the nature of the admonishment and the essence that this is a "final warning" type of admonishment will satisfy the requirement to remind administrators of the importance of recusal in such situations. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an "acknowledgment of error", even if forthcoming, as being helpful. Were you ever told to say sorry to someone at school, and did you do so meaningfully? Stifle (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - the whole reason we're here is for Arbcom to decide what to do. For them to take the role of the teacher in the playground forcing what amounts to an apology seems relatively pointless. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Stifle and Fritzpoll, as I understand it, ArbCom does not force apologies for several reasons including the one you suggest. However, what I think Abd is getting at is an indication that JzG recognises and understands why recusal was appropriate - because if he doesn't, then how can he reasonably be expected to judge when to recuse in the future. Whilst a mea culpa might be gratifying for some, more important (IMO) is recognition akin to "I see why recusal would have been appropriate and undertake to recuse if a similar circumstance arises in the future". EdChem (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that, but I think all we can hope for is the what JzG has already said about Cold fusion. I think expecting an explicit acknowledgement is unnecessary if this proposed sanction were adopted, provided it were definitely to be enforced as a "last chance saloon". The problem is that, absent this, we're looking at desyssopping as a sanction. I just can't propose that based on the evidence available Fritzpoll (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that desysopping isn't shouldn't be warranted. My issue with the undertaking to stay away from cold fusion is that it side steps whether or not recusal was warranted. My personal view is that JzG tends to act even if there is a conflict, and expect that there won't be an issue so long as the action is justifiable. Unfortunately, that's not good enough in a collaborative activity because it irritates those who disagree. I have some sympathy with the response 'so what' when it comes to POV-pushers (especially the ones pushing fringe nonsense), but what about productive editors who simply disagree in a particular instance. Ultimately, administrators acting with a conflict means loss of confidence in administrators, it favours development of cliques, and it means loss of editors. Recusal is not just a minor issue of process; it is fundamental to responsible use of administrative tools. If JzG declines to formally acknowledge the importance of recusal (which would take a one sentence statement) then he risks ArbCom members being forced into a disproportionate response. EdChem (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Right on, Ed. Except for the first sentence. With that, I'd agree that it shouldn't be warranted, but then turn to your last sentence, which is clearer. One of the benefits which is likely to come out of this arbitration is a better understanding of recusal. I've been saying this stuff for a while, and, of course, I don't know how much ArbComm will agree with me, but it's very important that the issue of recusal be faced squarely, and I consider it likely that whatever ArbComm decides, it will be an improvement.

If an admin thinks that recusal is some minor detail, that objecting to an action on the basis of involved bias is "wikilawyering," then we have a problem. Failure to recuse is damaging even when the action, in itself, is "right." Sometimes it doesn't matter, but we don't necessarily see the damage when it does matter. Mostly, editors just go away, and it seems that peace was established. Until the next editor shows up and does the same thing. (And then a few editors don't go away, they make a huge fuss, and we can feel satisfied by blocking them and then spending our time identifying socks instead of improving content.) If the first editor had, instead, been treated with civility and consideration and integrated into the consensus, which does not mean compromising our policies, that first editor would then welcome the second, explain why things are the way they are, and help expand the community and the consensus, so that it's a living thing. One of the signs that an article "community" is mature is that bad behavior by some member of a POV "faction" is regulated by other members of that POV, not by those who might be expected to disagree. Wny would they do this? Because the article has become a matter of consensus, and disruption will damage the balance of that, and if it seems that the change favors one's POV, there will be a backlash, edit warring, and pushing the boulder up the hill over and over. If one holds a minority POV, it's especially important not to allow loose cannons to damage the compromises that have been worked out, that create text accepted by broad consensus as showing what's available in reliable sources, that include what is useful to readers, that increase the overall informativeness of the article by reflecting all notable points of view, etc. --Abd (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In preparing to consider Abd's response, I re-read my post and thought to myself that I should have used "shouldn't be" rather than "isn't" in the first sentence. In light of Abd's starting comment - which reflects this exact same thought - I have made the change. It fits with my position much better. Plus, copy editing allows me to fix an awful typo. :D EdChem (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd admonished

2) Abd (talk · contribs) is admonished for failing to respond to feedback in regards to handling disputes. He is instructed to alter his approach in the future in light of the comments received.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Recuse. The problem here is that "failing to respond to feedback" is based on feedback that this whole thing was silly and overblown and a waste of time, and it looks like ArbComm will show that it wasn't. As to instruction to alter my approach, sure. I'm all ears. Was there a better way? I tried the initial direct approach. I tried an indirect approach, attempting to solicit friends of JzG to give him some good advice. Then I escalated per WP:DR, and attempted, mostly successfully, to keep the RfC from becoming a laundry list of complaints about JzG. Then, I would have brought this here if Jehochman hadn't beaten me to it. So, if I did something wrong, please, establish this as a proposed finding before proposing an admonition! --Abd (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Abd means well, but there is no ignoring the fact that he rubs people up the wrong way in his approach to this kind of dispute, as has been pointed out to him in disputes beyond this specific instance. There is no doubt that he follows the letter of WP:DR, but his approach is often not conducive to resolving the dispute itself. If he wants success in this area of work on Wikipedia, he needs to respond to the criticisms he has received. The ends of getting a good result do not justify the means used to get there. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Without a Finding of Fact supported by convincing diffs, this is unfair. The fact that Abd's style (coupled with his ADHD) may irritate some people is nowhere near sufficient justification for an ArbCom admonishment. I agree that Abd's communication style could be improved, and he could certainly let points drop that aren't that important. Unfortunately, some of that feedback to which you refer is part of the problem. For example, WP:DEADHORSE has been referenced in the numerous prior stages of WP:DR which Abd has pursued, providing feedback that there was no issue here. Yet, until ArbCom became involved, concerns Abd has been raising all along (the appropriateness of the blacklisting and the recusal issue, for example) have been disregarded. Consequently, it can reasonably be suggested that disregarding that deadhorse feedback was reasonable. Further, the proposed admonishment could easily be misused. Suppose Abd questions an action an a reviewing admin affirms that action - could Abd taking it to the next step be a failure to respond to the feedback of the affirming admin? In the present case, had such an admonishment have already existed, could Jzg have responded to the RfC by posting a request for a block against Abd, either at WP:AE or WP:RfAr? I also shudder at the idea of Abd being more zealous in responding to feedback in a literal sense - I think we would all agree that he conscientiously provides a response to comments. :) EdChem (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Admonishment may be slightly too strong, I agree, so I may redraft. I'll also add diffs to my FoF #3 to support this. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: