Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3

This is a draft RfC and will remain in user space for less than a week before being moved to WP space.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC).

---

• JzG (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Statement of the dispute

JzG has used administrative tools with respect to articles with which he was involved, and with respect to editors with whom he was in dispute. JzG has ignored or rejected comments and requests regarding this, and has denied improper use of tools.

This RfC is filed solely to address the issue of use of tools while involved, and, for this purpose, it is not necessary to determine that the involvement was itself improper; examples of incivility and tendentious editing will be raised solely to show the depth of involvement, and thus the serious impropriety of use of tools while involved, not to propose sanctions or remedies for such ordinary editorial behavior.

Desired outcome

JzG assures the community that he recognizes the impropriety of his actions, and that such actions will not be repeated, and he himself reverses, or consents to the reversal of any of these actions, still standing in effect, by any other administrator, and apologizes to affected editors. Alternatively, he resigns his administrative privilege or it is removed by further process.

Description

JzG long involved with Cold fusion

His first edit to Cold fusion was:

• 11:54, 13 July 2006 (Someone does not understand what "evenly split" means. A 2/3 majority against is not "evenly split".)[1]

This edit was reverted by Pcarbonn correcting JzG's misunderstanding.[2]

JzG went on to make a total of 64 edits to Cold fusion, through January 30, 2009. Complete list: User:Abd/JzG#64 Edits by JzG to Cold fusion. Edit summaries showed POV position, for example:

• 09:26, 26 January 2009 (Further developments: and that is the usual cherry-picking and distortion, we have already been over this ground many times. The conclusion of the report is vastly more skeptical than these cher) [3]
• 19:35, 27 October 2008 (Extreme WP:UNDUE in the lead; it is special pleading at its worst. So what if the CF advocates are still saying it exists? No new significant work since the 2004 review) [4]
• 14:04, 8 December 2007 (External links: Hmm. That one smells strongly of kook to me)[5]

This was a removal of an External link to lenr-canr.org, a library of documents (most published elsewhere, many in peer-reviewed publications, and hosted by permission) related to Cold fusion, probably the best available. "Cold fusion" is considered a fringe science, though that is debatable (with reliable sources in conflict).

JzG's first edit to Talk:Cold fusion was:

• 17:22, 10 January 2006 (Wow, is this ever a blast from the past!)[6]

JzG went on to make a total of 140 edits to Talk:Cold fusion, through January 30, 2009. Complete list: User:Abd/JzG#Edits_by_JzG_to_Talk:Cold_fusion.

Many of these edits were contentious or uncivil or betrayed clear POV attachment. For example:

• "two peer-reviewed literature reviews" is WP:UNDUE big time. On the one hand, paper sin Nature and one of the most heated scientific controversies in my lifetime. On the other, two literature reviews in low-impact journals by interested parties. This is a perfect example of the way this article has been biased by Pcarbonn to reflect the pro-LENR POV, as documented in his self-congratulatory article in New Energy Times. I tis time for all the NET POV-pushers, especially Pcarbonn, to be topic-banned. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[7]

This was in reference to this edit to the lead, removing reliably sourced information. The papers in Nature were published about twenty years ago, based on hasty attempts to replicate with inadequate information (we have ample reliable source on what happened), the "two reviews," though not in publications with the reputation of Nature, were much more recent and still RS. The purpose here is not to establish that JzG was "wrong," but to show that JzG was involved, with a strong POV. Pursuing a POV, again, isn't the topic here, but that he then supported his POV with his admin tools.

• You need to butt out. Advocating links to your own website is considered a form of spamming. You don't seem to do much other than that at present. Incidentally, my friend who worked with Fleischmann is a world class expert on electrochemistry with a publicaiton list as long as your arm, an endowed chair at a British university, a worldwide lecture schedule and a standard undergraduate text to his name. And he thinks it's not fusion. And he wrote one of the control systems for one of Fleischmann's original experiments. Beware the appeal to authority. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This was in response to Jed Rothwell, a writer who has for many years specialized in low-energy nuclear reactions ("cold fusion"), and who is the "librarian" of lenr-canr.org. He signs IP edits with his name and title, not a link. He is COI and, complying with guidelines on that, after 2006, voluntarily confined himself to editing Talk pages.

This AN report from July, 2008, shows, again, JzG's deep involvement with Cold fusion. He filed the report, and again referred to the source of his convictions on the topic. A friend of mine who was a grad student in one of the labs in which the original Fleischmann-Pons experiments were conducted, and who is still active in academia as a full professor in bio and electrochemistry at an English university, read through the FA version and said he considers it a fair representation of the field. I trust his judgment in a way I don't trust that of Pcarbonn.

Jed Rothwell and copyvio claims

Many of JzG's problematic administrative actions are connected with Jed Rothwell, who is the "librarian" of lenr-canr.org. JzG long asserted copyright violation on the part of this website, not to mention "fringe" and "kook," which strikes at its very reason for existence, to host otherwise difficult-to-access documents on the topic of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) also known as chemically assisted nuclear reactions (CANR), or, popularly, Cold fusion. Within the field, Rothwell and lenr-canr.org are highly notable and the site considered reliable, being commonly used to reference papers. The allegation of copyright violation appears to stem from an assumption by JzG that if a paper is published by, for example, Elsevier, it is impossible to obtain permission to host it and, therefore, if it is hosted, it must be copyvio. This issue has been examined in detail in several fora, including review by an arbitrator, and the argument has been rejected. Many of JzG's edits to Cold fusion consisted of removals of links to this site, which were convenience copies of published papers; lenr-canr.org isn't the publisher, so "fringe" pales as an issue. A history of the allegations of copyvio is at User:Abd/JzG#Edits_asserting_copyright_violation_at_lenr-canr.org. This is presented to show the depth and duration of conflict with Jed Rothwell, who was eventually declared banned by JzG, blocked, and blocked again for block evasion (though he had apparently not evaded the block); JzG blacklisted Rothwell's web site. (When the blacklisting was challenged here, JzG went to meta and requested blacklisting without reference to the dispute here; he asserted copyvio, linkspamming, unreliability, and fringe, and global blacklisting was granted, making the local blacklisting moot. Local whitelisting of links to lenr-canr.org is being pursued, one link has been whitelisted, but the process is cumbersome and JzG edit warred to keep the link out even after it was whitelisted. However, as this is written, it stands, after extensive discussion, see Martin Fleischmann, and last restoral of the link. JzG recently removed this same link from Cold fusion.[8].

Powers misused

• Protection (JzG protection log):

1. Talk:Cold fusion log
   1. 20:28, 30 January 2009 ... (expires 20:28, 30 July 2009 )... (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=267447809) [for specific explanation, see Statement by JzG]
   2. 00:06, 12 December 2007 ... (expires 00:06, January 12, 2008 ) ... (Spamming and abuse from website owner) [Jed Rothwell]
2. 14:51, 1 January 2008 Condensed matter nuclear science log (POV fork used to get round article proteciton) [Indef full protection. CMNS is the general scientific field name covering cold fusion. JzG restored merge by ScienceApologist, then protected]
3. 12:16, 1 January 2008 Cold fusion research log (POV fork used to evade article protection, not really on.) [Indef full protection]
4. 20:21, 6 December 2007 Cold fusion log (expires 20:21, January 6, 2008 (UTC) ‎(Anon threastens to continue POV-pushing)

• Deletion (JzG deletion log):

1. Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science log

Most deletions may be uncontroversial (but still improper because of involvement). However, this recent one was abusive, as can be seen from the restored Talk page. Merges may be undone later and Talk should remain. When this was restored, JzG moved the page to Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science/Archive, edit summaries (Archiving the twaddle) and (archived rampant POV-pushing.)

1. Talk:Cold fusion/wip log
2. User talk:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion log
3. User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion log
4. Talk:Cold fusion/tmp log
5. User:CMNS log This was a registered user, apparently, all contributions have been deleted.

• Blocking (JzG block log):

1. 23:53, 29 January 2009 blocked 68.219.198.240 [1 month] ‎ (Block evasion) [Jed Rothwell (signs edits)]
2. 09:16, 26 January 2009 blocked 208.89.102.50 [1 month] ‎ (Topic ban and block violations. This is Jed Rothwell.) [Jed Rothwell (signs edits)]
3. 10:51, 31 December 2008 blocked 69.228.220.30 [1 month] ‎ (Jed Rothwell) [[apparently blocked based on POV judgment, no Rothwell sig and IP locates to wrong area.]
4. 10:50, 31 December 2008 blocked 69.228.207.247 [1 month] ‎ (Block evasion: Jed Rothwell) [see above, same editor, probably not Rothwell]
5. 20:51, 18 December 2008 blocked 68.158.255.197 [1 month] ‎ (Disruptive editor who states he has no interest in improving Wikipedia, only in causing annoyance.) [Jed Rothwell (signs edits)]

• Protected pages edited

• 21:31, 18 December 2008 MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist ‎ (+1) [9]

Added newenergytimes.com to the spam blacklist. There had been no linkspamming alleged. Not logged, decision not made by neutral admin.

• 21:13, 18 December 2008 MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist ‎ (+1) [10]

Added Jed Rothwell's domain to the spam blacklist. Not logged, decision not made by neutral admin. JzG did add a request "for transparency," but he had simultaneously blacklisted.

Applicable policies

• Protection policy

• Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus. WP:PREFER
• Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute. WP:PREFER

• Deletion policy

• (No specific policy on deletion while involved was found by Abd)

• Blocking policy

• Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. Blocking_policy#Conflicts_of_interest

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

by Abd

• 19:44, 6 January 2009 (Please remove lenr-canr.org from the spam blacklist) [11]

Request was based on use of admin tools while involved, besides argument on the merits.

• Request denied

• 23:57, 6 January 2009 (Please remove lenr-canr.org from the spam blacklist: are we done? would you consent to another administrator's removal of the listing?)[12]

• Request denied.

• 05:07, 8 January 2009 (Please remove lenr-canr.org from the spam blacklist: please make this objection moot.) [13]

• Denies special involvement.

• 19:26, 12 January 2009 (lenr-canr.org: briefly, was your addition to the blacklist a legitimate use of your admin tools?)[14]

• Request denied with (lenr-canr.org: oh go away. One locus is more than enoujgh for your silly crusade on behalf of the spamming POV-pusher)

• 19:41, 27 January 2009 (Your block of 208.89.102.50: new section)[15]

Again called attention to use of tools while involved.

• Request denied.

• 23:23, 27 January 2009 [16] (provided evidence re probable block of misindentified editor)
• 05:07, 2 February 2009 (Talk:Cold fusion: well, you might try asking me!)[17] asked JzG to suggest a mediator.

No response.

outline from memory, to be filled out and diff'd. I have a bad memory

Not to be trusted until diff'd.

requested JzG undelete Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science. denied; however, JzG consented to undeletion.

JzG filed premature RfAr to support block of Rothwell. Evidence page was compiled on request for that. Several comments there noted JzG action while involved, the request was rejected, but JzG has cited that RfAr as confirmation of his actions.

He has denied involvement or any impropriety in his actions, no errors have been admitted.

He attempted to have the evidence page deleted; this RfC became necessary to prevent the loss of the evidence that had been presented to ArbComm.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.