Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3

Desired outcome

Description

JzG long involved with Cold fusion

Jed Rothwell and alleged copyvio

Powers misused

Applicable policies

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Attempt by Abd

Attempt by Petri Krohn

Attempt by Durova

Community attempt

Prior RfC regarding JzG

Focus of present RfC

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Other users who endorse this statement

Secondary comment

Outside view by Fritzpoll

Dispensing with the conflated issue of content/blacklists, what remains is Guy's behaviour. Most of the edits being discussed above relate to the period prior to the second RfC, the result of which was Guy acknowledging that he had faults, explained his actions, and agreed to calm down about them. What remains is again a perception - that Guy should have let some other admin handle it to avoid any accusation of bias or impropriety. What would be good, I feel, is if Guy were willing to do one of two things in cases where he feels there is an urgent need to do something like this:

1. Palm it off onto another admin
2. In case of an emergency, perform the action but immediately get confirmation from AN or some appropriate venue.

Finally, the MfD was entirely appropriate. As Abd says, the page was created as an Arbcom evidence page (essentially, I assume, to get around the word limits) and point 10 of the relevant policy indicates that such material cannot be stored within the userspace without the intention of a timely filing of a dispute resolution process. I assume from Guy's comments throughout that MfD that this was essentially the reason. I see no fault with this in particular.

I have based these comments on the evidence as presented. I am willing to revise them in light of compelling new evidence presented.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Specifically endorsing the view that a) Guy did nothing wrong and b) bringing admin actions to ANI for review is always a good idea - especially if other editors have a vendetta against you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree --Shot info (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Struck - supporting this view is being misread as an endorsment of JzG having done something wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Perfect synopsis. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. PhilKnight (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Very well summed up Enric Naval (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree. - Bilby (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree Cardamon (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Endorse/Agree Verbal chat 09:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Endorse especially per Spartaz. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And, to be clear, the statement I don't think Guy has acted improperly in performing these actions, since the community has time and again validated them. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Endorse per the author and Spartaz comment. Franamax (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This crusade by ABD is now disrupting the project. He has created multiple instances of unnecessary and wasteful drama that sucks up unnecessary editor and administrative time and energy that should be used to improve the project. The rejected RFAR clearly showed that the arbiters simply couldn't understand what all this fuss is about. I share their confusion. This is a clear case of beating a dead horse and while I agree generally with Fritpoll's advice to Guy on how to avoid future complaints of thus type, I firmly believe that ABD needs to drop this now and stop wasting our time. I suggest that if he cannot do this he should be topic banned from anything to do with Guy, Cold Fusion and Black/White lists.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yup William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree - Sometimes you have to wonder if the energy and time spent compiling this RfC would be better spent on editing less contentious articles - endose Jehochman below - although would be nice for Abd to step away from the CF carcass since it's becoming clear he doesn't like other editors daring to touch his article--Shot info (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC) With the caveat that I do not agree generally with Fritzpoll's advice, insofar as it's being read to be an indictment of JzG's blameless conduct. Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Throwawayhack (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree, this is getting to the point where topic bans are necessary. Enric Naval (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree, and will be available for enforcing it if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Endorse. R. Baley (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Agree. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Endorse. Having been involved with this dispute somewhat, Abd's actions have been far more disruptive to article improvement and community cohesion than Guy's, which is all that should matter. Phil153 (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. This is not the first time that Abd has engaged in WP:STICKy conduct in support of POV pushers on a fringish topic, nor is it the first time that he's made a nuisance of himself by abuse of the WP:DR process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Endorse. Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Good advice, though I think Abd should not be sanctioned at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Endorse Cardamon (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Endorse Verbal chat 09:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Endorse Yes, please. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Endorse, for the sake of our collective sanity. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. I'm....really hesitant to endorse this. I've had some clashes w/ AbD before and I do think that he can become unduly fixated on an editor or an issue. Or...he can generate a considerable amount of text on a subject about which he has a reasonable level of interest in. On the other hand, accepting this point of view demands that we reject AbD's claims as a remedy. I don't think that is fair. It is reasonable to say that Guy made mistakes, knew better and kept making them. Some mistakes were worse than others. We should agree on some sort of response to those. I want to be able to support a response that also acknowledges AbD's peculiar habits in resolving disputes. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Daniel (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Eusebeus (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. I have found Abd's verbose talk contributions to be obfuscatory, largely content-free, and invariably supportive of fringe positions. His presence is not helpful in these areas. Skinwalker (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. WMC summarizes nicely at endorse #2. Franamax (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice in my opinion is for involved admins to request assistance at a noticeboard, where a self-selected uninvolved admin can handle the situation. Decisions involving use of tools are often borderline and nuanced. If no other admin has reversed some actions, that doesn't necessarily mean that an uninvolved admin would have decided to carry out the action. The actions listed here are controversial and are opposed by some users: for example, under most circumstances I prefer that talk pages of redirected articles not be deleted.

I endorse the policies, which generally require involved admins to refrain from using tools, with exceptions for emergency situations etc. JzG has clearly used tools while significantly involved, and I ask that he stop doing that.

An Arbitration principle states "In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual." (Fringe science). Cold fusion has been on the news recently [286], and regardless of what actually causes the reported effects, the fact that research is being carried out and is being written about needs to be described in Wikipedia. The appropriate amount of coverage of the topic within Wikipedia should be determined by normal processes and community consensus, not through use of tools by individual involved admins.

JzG's comments about Abd are irrelevant on this RfC and I don't agree with them. For example, JzG says "Abd is unwilling to accept that any view but his own has validity." This is the opposite of my experience with Abd, who I see working primarily with the goal of achieving consensus rather than promoting any one point of view, and who by setting a humbling example in this way in his cold fusion consensus-building work has recently inspired me, contributing to my managing to re-shift my focus in a current Arbitration case from contention to consensus-building. I display on my userpage a quote from Abd, "Individual opinion about NPOV is unreliable, ultimately. [287] The comments by Abd in cold fusion discussions which inspired me were such as, "What I'm insisting on is that we follow consensus process, not that we favor one side or another, and that we review and use sources without regard to the conclusions that someone might make from them." [288] and "I'm quite interested in cold fusion, yes, but I don't expect to satisfy that interest on or with Wikipedia. I place NPOV above my personal interests, it's essential to me. NPOV can be very difficult to judge by oneself, for we all have biases; but a sign of true NPOV is that reasonable editors holding quite diverse points of view will agree on it." [289]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC) (involved in editing Cold fusion and related articles and a related discussion with JzG) (Minor modification: adding links to "a current Arbitration case" and "his cold fusion consensus-building work"; no change in wording. 13:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
2. Abd (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC) (blush). Spectacular, Coppertwig.[reply]
3. Ottre 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC). Agree that JzG is overly involved with this topic and has misrepresented Abd in several of his comments, especially RE the level of general-interest readership w/ circumlocution.[reply]
4. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. DGG (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. JzG accuses Abd of forum shopping, but in reality he has merely been assiduously following WP:DR which is fundamental to his approach to matters such as this. Abd has on multiple occasions indicated that he would have preferred that it not come to an RfC and that the issue was actually forced upon him by JzG's MfD. --GoRight (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wfaxon (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. If there ever was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Jzg's ad-hominem attacks against Abd are an outrage. Abd is about as positive and neutral a person as you can hope to come across on Wikipedia. If anyone is deserving of an ad-hominem attack it's JzG. LirazSiri (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Adhering to a philosophy of 'The ends justify the means' is disruptive and debases wikipedia as a whole. There is no deadline, no reason to panic. Unomi (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Joe 03:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Pete (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kthough I agree with JzG's views on Cold fusion, i think that JzG's actions in this matter at Wikipedia have some of them been very wrong. The first that was wrong was trying to site ban the site, which is not a site primarily devoted to copyvio, and whose postings are not outside the accepted range of scientific practice with respect to copyright. But the one that was worst was the use of administrative powers in connection with the dispute. Short of a true emergency, which was not the case, there is no possible justification for doing so. True , some other admins have done likewise. They were wrong also, but this is a particularly serious case because

1. JzG is an experienced admin and knows the rules very well
2. JzG was very central to the disputed issue
3. The person he took action against was a cleasr opponent of his, and the dispute between them was unmistakable.
4. The actions were repeated

Any other admin would have been deadmined for this, or so I would hope. I refrain from comment on why this was not done.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. DGG (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Abd (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Endorsing the points which are relevant to this RfC.[reply]
5. Endorsing the comments regarding the use of administrative tools while involved. --GoRight (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Wfaxon (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. LirazSiri (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Ikip (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sounds convincing. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Respect DGG's view and agree with his view. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Pete (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had several encounters with Abd, on and off wiki, and I must say that I concur with the basis of his views. That does not mean that I agree with his continued attacks on the problem, trying to push his point, without actively getting involved in trying to solve the basis of a problem.

However, his approach is sometimes a bit too reactive, and I have warned him for that. He often has given the feeling that editors who perform actions with which he has a problem have not looked at the situation in a proper way (and tells that to those editors in a direct way). I am afraid that this has resulted in several cases where the editors who are approached in such ways are not/have not been cooperative further. For at least one of these cases I have suggested Abd to look better at the evidence that is available, but that did not result in him adapting his opinion, asking for the proper evidence, or trying to learn how some evidence is collected. He instead insisted in saying that others made the mistakes.

I have looked at the cases for de-blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, and for whitelisting several links on lenr-canr.org. My general view of the site is, that a) it contains a lot of information which, although it is a legal copy, is also available from the official site. A direct external link to the information on lenr-carn is hence just a convenience link, and not giving more value than a link to the official information (or, for books, a link to the automagically linked ISBN). b) it has information which is a copy of the original data which has been altered (which was shown for one example), and c) some information which is unique, and should be linked to the site. An example of the latter was whitelisted (while all former were rejected), though the whitelisted link was deemed not to contain information which was of use for the wikipedia article, and the reference was rejected (I haven't checked now, but I don't think there are links from mainspace to lenr-canr.org).

While I agree that JzG was involved in the dispute, e.g. meta blacklisting was requested by JzG, but performed by another editor after looking at the evidence, and hence I do not see that that is abuse of position. De-blacklisting and whitelisting requests were also handled by other editors, while JzG commented left and right.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. A good summary of Abd's attitude and the events regarding white and blacklisting. (see timeline of the blacklisting at the talk page. To clarify the last point made by Beetstra: JzG did add himself the link at the local blacklist but he opened a discussion at the blacklist talk page; he later opened a request at meta, where two local admins agreed with the request, the second one making the blacklisting himself.) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal Wikipedia no explanation would be necessary in certifying this RfC, but given the circumstances it is probably best to be clear: this RfC is about administrative recusal. This RfC is not a cloak for the fringe v. mainstream science dispute: if anything, I sympathize with JzG's views about cold fusion, but personal content opinions are not supposed to interfere with how we interpret and apply site policies.

It does appear that JzG inadequately explained his decision to include a domain on the spam blacklist, and his invocation of content objections regarding the site's POV increases the concern. The copyright issue is not sufficient to justify his action: even if his contention regarding copyvios were correct, Wikipedia frequently links to non-copyvio pages within sites that contain copyvio elsewhere. For example, as of this writing Wikipedia has 7,784 links to YouTube.com. Our standard response is to avoid links to specific copyvio pages, rather than blacklist the domain. Bear in mind the power of the spam blacklist: Google and other major search engines figure Wikipedia's spam blacklist into their ranking algorithms. So the blacklist itself needs to be reserved for exploitive spamming that cannot be corrected by milder solutions.

It may be argued that I have a 'history' with JzG. If that possibility colors one's perception, consider this: last year while the prior RfC on him was in preparation, I contacted the drafter and first asked him to delay it as a good faith gesture, in the hope that formal dispute resolution could be avoided. Upon receiving a reply that RfC had already been delayed a month and further delays were unlikely to result in an improvement in JzG's behavior, I asked as a courtesy that the RfC leave out an incident that happened in January 2007 which shed JzG in a poor light. In January 2007 I had given JzG a formal civility block warning after seeing half a dozen then-recent diffs of JzG using obscenities in conversation with fellow Wikipedians--in some instances directly calling them vulgar names. Last year I recused from all involvement in the RfC and subsequent arbitration. Although JzG made no secret of his animosity toward me during that period, I quietly shielded him from a portion of the complaints that would otherwise have arisen and I took no action against him. It appears now that there is no other person to certify this RfC. I consider it valid on its merits, and ask fellow Wikipedians to weigh it with equal good faith on its merits.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Abd (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --GoRight (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Wfaxon (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Unomi (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. LirazSiri (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. First, having blocked an editor does not constitute a history. I am not aware of you being at each other's throats routinely. Second, putting a site on the spam black list is about the same as filing a search-spam report. Google will investigate and may act as they see fit. I concur that blacklisting the site was not a good idea. We don't blacklist sites for being unreliable or for occasional, light spamming. Jehochman ^Talk 05:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Ikip (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Dlabtot (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Pete (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the common tactic of JzG (and some of his friends and allies) to take action (such as blocking a user, putting a site on the blacklist, etc.) with little or no discussion, and then insist that, since the resulting state of affairs is now the status quo, reversing it requires a solid consensus. This technique tilts the playing field in favor of his POV, but that's "OK" because all's fair in love and war... well, there isn't much love involved, but there's a War on Trolls, Cranks, Sockpuppets, Vandals, and Banned Users to win, and JzG is the heroic Wiki Defender to win it! Anybody who doesn't immediately back off when JzG has spoken is obviously trying to destroy Wikipedia, and must be an obsessive trolling idiot on a holy crusade. Of course, when JzG tenaciously sticks to his own campaigns to rid Wikipedia of "the wrong sort" of people, topics, and Web links, he's not on any kind of obsessive crusade himself... Holy crusade, Batman, he's just protecting the wiki from the evil scum who will destroy it! Once he decides somebody is one of the Bad Guys, he'll scorch the Earth to rid Wikipedia of every vestige of their pernicious influence, even if it means siding with and defending somebody who is an abusive sockpuppeteer himself, as in the infamous Mantanmoreland case. Even a podcast containing the voice of an Evil Banned User must be exterminated; JzG was one of the few who supported the failed attempt to delete a Not the Wikipedia Weekly episode featuring banned users. And, of course, he was a tireless supporter of the BADSITES initiative to suppress links to criticism of Wikipedia, even going to the ArbCom with a long rant in favor of amending a just-concluded case to impose a strict ban on "attack site" links after they had declined to do so. Thus, it's not surprising that in the current issue he has constantly come up with new rationales for blacklisting a "fringe" site he dislikes (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), despite holes big enough to drive a truck through (oops, a "lorry" for Brits like him) being poked in each of the alleged reasons. (struck since my comments here aren't necessarily helpful or on-topic)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ikip (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC) I agree with the general thrust of these comments although I'm not familiar with the details of some of the specific situations mentioned. Withdrawing. 13:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. LirazSiri (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been tangentially watching the debate at Cold fusion and the subsequent blacklisting of lenr-canr. While I'm sympathetic to both sides, I couldn't help get the sense that the blacklisting was not handled properly - I've certainly never seen a blacklisting handled in the same way. My sense was that the blacklisting was driven by an overt effort to censor the material as part of a content dispute, not, as is the usual case, because the web site was being aggressively pushed for self-promotion. There was certainly enough egregious behavior on the part of the lenr-canr backers to impose user sanctions. However, the blacklisting didn't seem to be targeted at the user behavior, but, IMHO, the goal appeared to be to suppress information. I think the issue should have been handled a little differently, with sanctions based on behavior and not on content.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Abd (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC) I suspect that the behavior of Jed Rothwell did not take place in a vacuum. Sure, he was eminently blockable, one reason I did not take it to a noticeboard, the others being that the block was moot, and Rothwell was utterly unconcerned. He doesn't need Wikipedia. (The alleged "pushing" was smoke, there wasn't linkspamming, that's part of the mud tossed against the wall that stuck. -- the title he uses, "librarian, lenr-canr.org" is not a link and does not violate guidelines.) The web site is quite notable, will have an article soon --plenty of independent RS -- as will the other site blacklisted with it). Lots of editors, facing abuse, become uncivil. They are responsible for that; but we expect exemplary behavior of administrators. To turn this around, and expect exemplary behavior from non-Wikipedians being abused by an administrator, well, ArbComm has made it abundantly clear: you do not block an editor with whom you have a dispute.[reply]
3. Oddly enough, I feel the same way. Blacklisting is for spam. POV pushing should be dealt with differently. Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. LirazSiri (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Endorse along with Abd's and Jehochman's comments above. --GoRight (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have previous experience dealing with both Abd and JzG and would like to offer a personal perspective. I wasn't previously familiar with the Cold Fusion entry, but as an uninvolved third party I took a close look at the evidence presented by Abd for this RFC and the pattern of abuse by JzG is unmistakable. Furthermore JzG's ad-hominem attacks in response to Abd are outrageous.

Abd is one of the most positive people on Wikipedia you could ever hope to meet. An impartial, wise, calm and educating influence that goes above and beyond the call of duty to help newcomers, mediate conflicts and set things right. See for yourself ([290]). IMO, Wikipedia should treasure his involvement.

JzG, OTOH is about as negative and corrosive a personality as I have ever had the displeasure of interacting with. In fact if you Google a bit you'll find he is world famous for this. He's keen on quickly flagging fellow editors as either friends or enemies, and is capable of viciously biting into anyone who doesn't agree with him. He styles himself as a protector of Wikipedia, especially against any manner of real and/or imagined spam and has gained a fervent clique of supporters in the process (really, who doesn't hate spam?). However, if you've ever been on the wrong side of his stick you know he quite often comes off as much more of a bully than a knight in shining armor.

This is not an isolated incident. JzG does not properly restrain his use of administration privileges on Wikipedia. This is just another unfortunate example. Tools should be used as a last resort after seeking consensus. They should most definitely not be used to gain an edge in content disputes. Especially after having demonstrated a POV. In his actions JzG demonstrates he should not be entrusted with any special privileges. His role in fighting spam (real or perceived) is sometimes useful, but the good that he does is all too frequently canceled out by his incendiary and corrosive nature. If you done the research you know there may be good medical explanations for his behavior, but Wikipedia should not be used as outlet for therapy. The community should send a strong message that his behavior is unacceptable and revoke his privileges if he does not acknowledge this and mend his ways. His fight against spam may then be continued under the supervision of more trustworthy administrators.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LirazSiri (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Personal experience verifies the above - even after a year he still knows how to be rude to me whenever he has a chance. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. amen Ikip (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Endorsing the part that is relevant to this RfC, i.e. the last paragraph. Believe it or not, deletionism and anti-fringeism is a POV.[reply]
6. No personal experience but the diffs provided certainly corroborate this view. Unomi (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take on the situation. I have not been involved at all with the Cold Fusion topic. In fact, I don't know if I've ever even glanced at the article. So, as far as that goes, I'm neutral. I was, however, one of the certifiers for the JzG RfC #2 and one of the parties in the RfAr that gave a formal finding on JzG's behavior. That said, here we go:

• 1. Was JzG an involved editor and did he take a side in the dispute concerning Cold Fusion's veracity? Yes. This diff is especially convincing, as it shows JzG archiving a two-day old discussion criticizing the neutrality, among other issues, with the article. I don't think the veracity of Cold Fusion itself is relevant here, the point is that JzG did take a side in the dispute with regard to that article.

• 2. Is lenr-canr.org an unreliable or "fringe" source? Not necessarily. The site appears to be a library of papers and documents. So, it doesn't appear that a blanket label of "unreliable" can be applied to the entire site. Instead, each paper or document posted on the site should be independently evaluated for reliability and attribution. So, was JzG wrong to blacklist the site? Yes.

• 3. Did JzG inappropriately use admin privileges with the Cold Fusion articles? Well, let's see:

• He semi-protected the article's talk page, [291], citing the arbcom discussion. The ArbCom, however, in that discussion did not authorize protection of the page, only the topic ban of an editor.
• Indef full protections of Condensed matter nuclear science and Cold fusion research. Well, those two articles were eventually merged into Cold Fusion, so it might be reasonable to consider those as POV forks needing to be frozen until the merge could take place. If JzG wasn't so involved in protecting one point of view in the article, however, those admin actions might have been more defensible. Anyway, why would the articles need to be protected from editing? As far as I know, it's generally not necessary to freeze an article before it's merged.
• Two of JzG's blocks are definitely problematic [292] and [293] as the evidence that these were banned editor Rothwell was contradictory.
• Added two links to the spam blacklist without prior discussion [294] [295]
• So, did JzG violate Wikipedia policy with regard to admin actions regarding this dispute? I would say yes, that JzG was too close to this dispute to be using the tools in the manner that he did as described above and several of those admin actions appear to be problematic. The blacklisting of the Rothwell site appears to have been vacated, I checked and can't see it on the list anymore.

• 4. Did Abd keep an "attack" page in his userspace on JzG? The discussion on it was fairly evenly split. I would say that it is unclear. The page didn't call JzG names, but listed examples of JzG's behavior and actions. You be the judge.
• 5. JzG's involvement with the Cold Fusion article subsided greatly around the end of January 2009. Does this mean that this RfC is unnecessary and moot? No. The IP's that JzG blocked are still blocked. JzG could become involved again in the article. If there were problems with his past behavior, they need to be addressed to head off any future issues.
• 6. JzG tried to get this RfC deleted. Not a good move if you want others to believe that you are willing and able to consider and respond productively to feedback on your behavior.
• 7. Summary- I admit that it's a fine line to walk about how "uninvolved" an admin needs to be in order to use tools to help control a dispute surrounding a topic. In this case, JzG appears to have been too involved to act in an admin function regarding the topic, and some of his admin actions were, unfortunately, clear errors in judgement, perhaps unduly influenced by his personal views on the topic. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing this summary (please list by number the bullet points you agree or disagree with, if desired):

1. LirazSiri (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Abd (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Delisting request for lenr-canr.org was denied as moot because meta blacklisted, listing here was removed for that reason. That's it's own issue, not for today. Excellent summary. There can be a fine line, JzG was over the line head and shoulders, torso and feet.[reply]
3. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ikip (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) More abuse, no surprise.[reply]
6. --GoRight (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse on all points.[reply]
8. Unomi (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Update: Considering whether to withdraw my endorsement. The issue is not so much the accuracy or not of how JzG's actions are being described by user:Cla68: I believe that JzG is far too hostile towards established editors and may be beyond correction at this point. I am troubled by the possibility that the outcome of this RfC may be another "win" for the advocates of anti-science and pseudoscience, following on the heels of the nine-month block against user:ScienceApologist.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Struck. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Users endorsing this summary:

1. Abd (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Acknowledgment of the error has been crucial in the past to ArbComm "forgiving" admin action while involved.[reply]
2. This much is entirely valid. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Unomi (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Failure to answer direct questions constitute disruption.[reply]
4. Sheesh how much more evidence do you need? LirazSiri (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sometimes JzG seems to be engaging in projection, attributing to others things he's guilty of himself. (struck since my comments here aren't necessarily helpful or on-topic) *Dan T.* (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Desired Outcomes section of this RFC attempts to force an apology from JzG, under threat of WP:RFAR. RFC is not for humiliating an editor. The desired outcomes section (this version) should be modified to focus on improving Wikipedia and building a consensus: JzG's behavior with respect to the blacklist has not been perfect. It would be helpful if he explained what he now understands to be best practices, and endeavors to follow best practices going forward. Extraneous complaints about long past matters should be removed as they only serve to inflame the dispute.

Additionally, a number of traditional opponents of JzG are using this RFC as a vehicle for continuing past feuds. That sort of behavior should be strongly discouraged.

Users endorsing this summary:

1. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 6 April 09 (UTC)
2. Oddly enough, I feel the same way. Ronnotel (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. With the caveat that he dosen't need to explain anything, he just needs to consult with other admins like Jehochman, who I have volunteered for this specific job. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Hipocrite. I'm uncomfortable with compelling any response from JzG here, and certainly wouldn't expect him to respond further to this RfC as long as there continues to be no apparent acknowledgement or understanding on the part of Abd about the role his conduct has played in this drama-filled waste of time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. As Hipocrite says, and I add JzG's conduct has been improving over time. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes, I can support mucg ifthis because this RFC is clearly a vehicle to attack and harrass Guy and not a legitimate attempt to garner community input into Guy's actions. I mean, how many forums can you post to before the consensus that Guy, like all of us, could do some stuff better but that overall there is no major objections to his actions is accepted?? I mean, look the proposal to sanction Abd has more support then any other, that surely tells us that this RFC is ill-conceived in its scope and desired outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse. The RfC seems unconstructive and unhelpful. It appears to be a long premeditated vendetta on Abd's part. There is no need to create this kind of time-wasting procedural drama just because an administrator has pointed out that the lenr-canr.org fringe website has no recognized scientific merit - The Emperor's New Clothes. Mathsci (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Endorse with caveats per Hipocrite --Shot info (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Endorse. Per Jehochman's suggestion here and comment on my Talk page, where he seems to understand that if I rant for 20 kB he can skim it or skip it (a difficult concept for some), I've removed the phrase in the Desired outcome section about apology; that would be nice but not necessary. I requested that irrelevant attack on JzG cease, the issue here is solely use of admin tools while involved, not JzG incivility or POV-pushing, and if such is patent from the histories, old or new, well, it's still irrelevant here. I'd have thought that my own sekrit agenda to fill the project with fringe doo-doo would be irrelevant too, but apparently some other editors disagree. It's likely to backfire, though. JzG needs a friend who will quietly take him aside and say, "Hey, you screwed up. Understand it, and show the community you understand it and therefore won't do it again, and this is over." However, "not been perfect" isn't acceptable language. Sorry, Jehochman, but it was blatant policy violation, and that understanding is essential.--Abd (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Agree. Though the language is still strong, and seems already to have established that JzG was far over the line, and that it is a blatant policy violation, and asks for extreme measures. I still believe that JzG was in a pretty grey area, certainly not in the black or white side of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Agree. With the caveat that he does not need to explain anything as Hipocrite said. I think all parties could call this a draw and back off, with lessons learned. Both of the editors being bandied about (Jzg and Abd) have a huge amount to offer the Wikipedia project and each is doing a very different but important aspect of that. skip sievert (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Mostly agree, per Spartaz and others above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. per Spartaz above. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Endorse per Hipocrite, Mathsci, Spartaz and TenOfAllTrades. Throwawayhack (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Lukewarm, but agree with the spirit. Beetstra covers many of my thoughts. The wording still says that Guy should give up the tools as an alternative. Interestingly, as I recall that was the exact ominous tone Abd adopted right at the start of this, and the same approach Abd uses for many admins. Paraphrasing: "OK, I'm keeping notes on this, I hope this doesn't end up at ArbCom. We'll keep doing an incredibly laborious process of DR until you finally do what I want." Franamax (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd's style of writing massive stream-of-consciousness entries on talk pages is disruptive. If he cannot be more concise on talk pages, he should cease editing talk pages entirely.

1. Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I agree.[reply]
3. TL,DR seicer | talk | contribs 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. "He only does it to annoy, because he knows it teases" Mathsci (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, but this isn't relevant to the RFC. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. He has stated that he is capable of expressing himself clearly but chooses not to do so, and that the burden he places on others to decode his prolix maundering is of no interest to him. Such a calculated gesture of contempt for his colleagues has no place here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Definitely agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Hell yeah --Shot info (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. He also resists collapsing of his comments, so we are stuck with walls of text throwing conversations out of track --Enric Naval (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. please make an effort to be concise! Throwawayhack (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. "Keep it pithy". II | (t - c) 17:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Inappropriately expressed, and (as Stifle notes) not relevant to this RFC, but essentially correct. Willful lack of conciseness is a passive-aggressive form of incivility, even if the editor is constitutionally incapable of expressing him- or herself concisely. —SlamDiego_←T 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agree. I don't understand how Abd's continued invitations to not read his posts if we don't want to take the time square with his desire to be taken seriously and have attention paid to his views. Franamax (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. This is a huge problem, and I wouldn't limit it to talk pages. Verbal chat 12:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Motion to close enacted: mixed views on the matter. Proceeded to ArbCom.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.