Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

Case Opened on 01:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch 1], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch 2], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch 3], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch 4]

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Initiated by Jehochman Talk 15:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 
 * 


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * Requests for comment/JzG 3 and things linked from there.

Statement by Jehochman
I've been watching this dispute ever since it spilled onto my talk page a few months ago. Abd is incensed concerned with the way JzG has used admin tools at Cold Fusion. (I brought a case here about that article.) After at least one community discussion failed to generate the result Abd wanted, Requests for comment/JzG 3 was started, and in spite of all guidance, Abd remained at the forefront of the dispute. My advice was that Abd's personal presence was harmful to resolution of the dispute due to the personal conflict between him and JzG. On the other side, I asked JzG to back down a bit, but that was not possible without a loss of face. In the background we have a few editors, such as Jed Rothwell, who continue to play games at Cold Fusion.

I request the Committee help untangle this mess. Nothing the community has done seems to have lowered the temperature of the dispute. We need enforced mediation, but such thing does not exist on Wikipedia, so I come to arbitration as the next best solution. Issues:


 * Were JzG's disputed administrative actions proper, or not?
 * Has Abd engaged in dispute intensification and forum shopping?

The committee, especially you newcomers, should read through Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman and try to avoid repeating those blunders. At present, the opinions at Requests for comment/JzG 3 seem to favor JzG's interpretation of matters. The committee should respect community opinions. If we, the community, have gotten it wrong, don't take this out on JzG. Use the opportunity to set down clearer standards. Jehochman Talk 15:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting conversation here for those of you who are diff connoisseurs. Subsequent actions by JzG are understandable in the context that his prior administrative actions in the cold fusion venue were blessed (perhaps incorrectly) by Thatcher and a few arbitrators. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since a few people seem to misunderstand: whether or not JzG's actions were wrong, he has at no point received consensus feedback that he was wrong. A few editors, notably Abd and Durova have stood up and given him criticism.  That's fine, but they have not yet achieved a consensus for that position.  They seem to be seeking sanctions against JzG.  That should be off the table because JzG has not received feedback, to my knowledge, that his action was wrong, nor has he been given a chance to correct himself.  Likewise, I think that talk of sanctioning Abd is unhelpful.  Editors should not be discouraged from raising complaints, though I think Abd's prosecution has been excessive and unhelpful to a degree.  If he is told that, and stops, then nothing further is needed.  At this point, there is no consensus on either issue.  That's why we are here. Jehochman Talk 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ronnotel, we are not in the business of humiliating people. Even banned users are supposed to be treated politely.  We should allow our volunteers to save face whenever possible. Jehochman Talk 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To User:Newyorkbrad, yes. If JzG says he will not administrate at Cold Fusion and he will not do controversial things with the spam blacklist, that would settle my concerns.  On the other side, I'd like Abd to agree to drop this matter. Jehochman Talk 01:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am now satisfied with JzG's statement. As a practical matter, if this case is rejected, Abd will have to drop the matter. There is a clear consensus that he should among those members of the community who have looked at the matter objectively. JzG will have to exercise care going forward, which is the result that was hoped for. I note Durova's lingering concern about a canvassing accusation.  Perhaps she could discuss that directly.  It does not seem worthwhile to have a case about that. Jehochman Talk 12:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The following was moved from another section. KnightLago (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems like there might be an Arbcom-l discussion going on to determine whether or not to open this case. When in doubt, don't take any unnecessary actions. It seems like Guy has made concessions. Perhaps there is an arbitrator who would volunteer to attempt to mediate a resolution of any lingering disputes. This would save a hell of a lot of time. Jehochman Talk 4:54 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Statement by Abd
See Requests for comment/JzG 3 for diffs and detailed listings.

JzG was long involved in editing Cold fusion (64 edits) and Talk:Cold fusion (140 edits).

JzG has used administrative tools with respect to Cold fusion and related articles, including protecting a preferred version (of Condensed matter nuclear science), and blocked an editor involved with Cold fusion, with whom he had long-term dispute and a history of incivility, plus he blocked another IP editor on the unlikely claim that they were the same.

JzG was asked to undo actions or recuse himself by three editors in January, 2009, as shown in the RfC. He denied involvement and refused in all cases but one to recuse.

The last of the actions while involved, covered by the RfC, took place after most of these efforts, and after the RfAr he filed for confirmation was declined, JzG declared that it had confirmed his actions.

In addition, JzG removed a comment in the RfC itself from an IP editor, and the edit summary and his block of the IP referenced an off-wiki dispute, thus showing that even after the RfC was filed, he did not show due caution in avoiding use of tools while involved.

JzG thus continues in violation of admin policy. Arbcom should therefore consider the consequences of JzG's continued administrative status, or clarify the policy on administrative involvement.

I agree with Jehochman that this matter requires arbitration, I understand that my behavior may come under scrutiny, and I appreciate Jehochman's prior efforts to resolve the dispute.

Beyond a few warnings, mostly from involved editors, on my Talk page, there has been no process followed beyond raw complaint to resolve disputes over my behavior. Hence I suggest a focus, at this time, on whether or not the allegations made regarding JzG are true, and the determination of appropriate response, and allow normal dispute resolution to clarify and possibly resolve issues over my behavior before wasting ArbComm time on it; to my knowledge, I have followed WP:DR with care, caution, and minimal disruption, given the seriousness of the violations.

If the editors who are complaining about me have attempted to resolve disputes on my Talk page, and some have, then RfC is open to them. I'd rather not be a distraction from the fundamental issue of recusal, which is more important than my editorship. These issues should be separated, or, if combined, handled sequentially. If JzG did not act while involved, if he did not violate admin policy, then my actions were truly outrageous and I should be topic banned until I come to my senses. But if he did violate, and if this was a matter of import, then I have served the community, by not allowing it to be swept under the carpet, where the lumps could trip us for years. --Abd (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad
This case is not about Cold fusion, it is about administrative recusal. Cold fusion was merely an example that was researched in depth, so a "tool ban" on the one article does not address the issue at all. It is unlikely that use of tools while involved has been confined to one article or one disliked editor, and a possible new incident took place during the RfC itself, as cited in my comment above. What was suggested in the RfC as a "Desired outcome" was that JzG acknowledge errors (now specified as errors which the community or the committee confirms as such) (which requires that he acknowledge that he was involved, and that he had a duty to recuse) and then that he assure the community he will not repeat the mistake.

Promises without showing an understanding of the error do not leave us with any confidence that he can recognize involvement and the duty to recuse. No allegation has been made of bad faith by me; rather, I continue to assume good faith, but I must then conclude a lack of competence to stay within administrative policy. So, no, neither the assurance suggested about Cold fusion, nor the more general face-saving and vague assurance suggested by Fritzpoll, would be adequate, and would leave unaddressed an attitude among some administrators that admin recusal is technical bureaucratic nonsense and that protesting involvement is wikilawyering and disruptive. There are also major issues raised about the use of blacklists to control content. I had drafted an RfAr confined narrowly to failure to recuse, considering that dispute resolution on all other matters was not mature, but Jehochman beat me to it with something much broader, and I remain at the service of the committee and the community. --Abd (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Response re meta discussions
m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2009-01. Includes original blacklist request by JzG, rapid close with little discussion, protest and massive discussion, then close confirming listing by User:Mike.lifeguard. Newenergytimes.com is not meta blacklisted. The lack of a log entry, named discussion, or mention in edit summary, for the en.wikipedia blacklisting by JzG of NET, led to some confusion, hence the discussion there. Note that this was filed as an inquiry by Durova, not a request to blacklist, but it seems to have become a request as a suggestion by Beetstra in the discussion, declined anyway by User:Mike.lifeguard. NET remains locally blacklisted and there is a current request for delisting. The original listing was appealed as a delisting request ("appeal" means asking the same small set of administrators to reconsider, not the escalating process of WP:DR), though in this case there was no primary discussion, delisting was declined after considerable discussion by Beetstra. --Abd (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Response re JzG and Jehochman statements

 * There is no question of my not accepting an ArbComm decision on this matter, this is the end of the tracks for WP:DR, and a decline to review the matter would be a decision leaving it with the majority at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3. However, I'm puzzled. Some time ago, the 48 hours had passed, there was the required majority to take the case, and there was no objection to taking it. Why hasn't the case been opened? Why is there, now, discussion here? I've only answered, before this, arbitrator questions.
 * I laid out previously what conditions JzG could meet (and any administrator could and should meet those conditions, given facts like those presented in the evidence at RfC) that would close this case. It now appears that, facing a clear decision to accept the case, JzG has very grudgingly made a minimal statement that, with a stretch, could be seen as resolving the matter, but only if the issue is perceived through a narrow filter that is quite distorted.
 * This was never about Cold fusion and my views on it. Jehochman cited in his filing how it started, and, at that point, I had not edited Cold fusion and had no fixed POV on it; indeed, I held, without serious examination, the common opinion: this was rejected twenty years ago. Durova was likewise concerned, and apparently has a POV on Cold fusion similar to that of JzG. It was only after I investigated the history, in pursuit of understanding JzG's actions, that I came to have an opinion that he imagines is driving my concern about his actions. The record shows something quite different, and it will be necessary to examine the record in detail to show that. I was concerned, from day one, about administrative recusal, and failure to recuse is a very serious problem even when the actions themselves are "proper," because of the appearance'' created. And when the actions are not proper, it's all the more serious.
 * There is another recent admin action cited in my statement, showing essentially the same pattern: JzG using his tools to enforce his own views. There are many administrators who have expressed, in the RfC and here, views that show a lack of concern for the problem of recusal. I don't see any way around a deep examination of the issues, and I fully understand the seriousness of my position. Indeed, if I'm wrong about recusal and the importance of it, I should be banned, not just from cold fusion, but from the project. I need to know. It colors everything. This isn't about desysopping JzG, that is merely a possible consequence. Arguments have been raised that since so many approved of his actions, he should be given a pass. These are worthy of consideration. But it must be resolved, I suggest: Would repetition of actions like this, by him or by other administrators, in the future, lead to a loss of administrative privileges if not clearly acknowledged as error and not repeated after that? --Abd (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
OK, I have thought long and hard about this. This is what I think is going on:
 * Abd is generally sympathetic to cold fusion, as an alternative energy source
 * I took some decisions in respect of CF that Abd did not like. Almsot all of these were editorial and related to undoing the POV-pushing of Pcarbonn as identified in the previous arbitration case.
 * I posted the few actions that were administrative in nature (whether or not tools were involved; often they were not) for review, and they were reviewed by independent admins, arbitrators and editors.
 * Abd asserts that these were bad decisions because I should not have been the one to take or advocate them.
 * Consensus appears to be that the actions are actually OK, but maybe I am not the best person to take action on that article any more, having become imbroiled in the dispute. I accept that.
 * I stopped taking admin actions in respect of that article in January anyway, when more eyes started looking at it, so in fact no change was necessary.
 * Abd still wants the actions reversed because he does not like the actions.
 * Abd is therefore playing the man, not the ball, in an attempt to find support for reversal of actions which have been reviewed and endorsed.
 * In doing so, Abd has relentlessly repeated the same accusations at numerous venues. This is not the escalating path of dispute resolution, this is a simple case of keep asking until you egt the answer you want.
 * The dispute was first raised by Abd at or after the time of the last admin action taken, in January, so if the intent was to get me to step away from the article, as he asserts, then it already worked months ago.

So: this is not a dispute in need of resolution, it is a vendetta in need of stopping. The problem is not that I am or even was using tools inappropriately, the problem is that Abd did not like what was done and wants it reversed even though consensus seems to be that (a) lenr-canr.org is unreliable and has been abused; (b) Jed Rothwell is here for WP:TRUTH not WP:NPOV, and always has been; (c) A topic ban for Jed is at least as justifiable as one for Pcarbonn and (d) newenergytrimes.org is also an unreliable source that has been used for advocacy. Abd appears, having read back over a truly inordinate amount of text he has posted, to want Jed Rothwell allowed to edit, lenr-canr.org restored as a source and newenergytimes declared reliable. I do not think any of these outcomes is desirable or consistent with WP:NPOV but I am quite happy to leave it to others to decide provided that Abd will agree to abide once and for all by any decision reached. The problem for me is simply that Abd has refused thus far to abide by any decision, whoever made it. These accusations have, after all, been discussed in identical terms (and without further action having been taken on my part to justify re-raising them) a significant number of times.

Matters of fact:
 * The meta blacklist is outside the scope of the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee, as I understand it.
 * All blacklist decisions have been reviewed anyway (several times, in most cases).
 * The topic ban of Jed Rothwell was sufficiently obvious that I was criticised for even asking for review of it.
 * I have taken no administrative actions as far as I can tell in respect of that article in three months, and actually took very few overall.

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.


 * Several comments in this thread appear to be well over the 500 word limit, could the parties please trim them. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 01:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in opening this, it should be up sometime later tonight provided I don't run into any problems off-wiki. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (11/0/1/2)

 * Accept to look at conduct of all involved parties. Wizardman  16:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept to look at all involved users.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept - I think this is reaching the end of the line, so the buck stops here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept. It seems that this is causing disproportionate drama, has exhausted viable resolution options at the community level, and includes a number of potential conduct issues to be examined. It's about as clear as it gets that this is a case needing arbitration and the accompanying detailed examination. --Vassyana (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept; there is a lasting problem, that much is evident. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept.  Roger Davies  talk 07:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept - RfC seems split between different views with no lasting resolution in sight. Am concerned that the line is being blurred between forum shopping and escalating through stages of dispute resolution. The former is bad, the latter is allowed, but it seems they are being confused. Carcharoth (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * John has said "JzG mentions two meta admins who have reviewed this blacklisting; can we please notify them of this case." Neither the RfC or this Request mention the meta admins by name, but I found the following diff at meta (11:57, 10 January 2009, Erwin (Talk | contribs), Adding \blenr-canr\.org\b per Talk:Spam blacklist. Using SBHandler) . The discussion is at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-01. I will ask the parties to confirm that these are the correct links, and I will contact User:Erwin and User:Mike.lifeguard (both of whom have en-Wikipedia accounts), and ask whether they are the meta admins in question, which will serve as notification if they are. Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Badger Drink, your sarcasm has been noted. Thank-you. Carcharoth (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: JzG and "meta red herring". Could you expand on the relationship between en-Wikipedia and the meta blacklist? I notified one of the meta admins involved in that discussion and he pointed me to meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2009-02. I also see references above to a 'reliable sources noticeboard' discussion on that website, and to a current discussion on delisting this website from the (en-wiki?) blacklist. I also see substantially the same participants in these discussions, so it seems all part-and-parcel of the same behaviour, whether technically in scope or not. Actions at meta can affect the local projects, so actions there can't be totally ignored (even if there might not be much that can be done about it). Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept. There has been a lot of heat about this blacklisting, and there is a good argument for this being an inappropriate use of the blacklist.  JzG mentions two meta admins who have reviewed this blacklisting; can we please notify them of this case. The incoming links can all be reviewed and determinations made on whether they are appropriate for certain articles.  I briefly looked into the blacklisting issue a little while ago at Talk:Martin Fleischmann, approaching it solely from the copyright angle, and I couldnt see why it was a copyright problem.  There is talk of this website altering the papers it republishes; I think it is crucial that we investigate that claim. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept to consider the behaviour and actions of the parties, and issues around the use of the blacklist. --bainer (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept to look at all involved parties, if you commented about this request, this means you. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept per FloNight. Risker (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. JzG's comments above suggest that while he does not believe his use of administrator tools on Cold fusion was inappropriate, he anticipates that in the future other administrators will be watching the page, with the implication that he will not need to be the admin to take any action that might be required. JzG, are you prepared to make a commitment not to take further administrator action on Cold fusion or closely related articles? Other commenters, if JzG agreed to make such a commitment, would that resolve this dispute in your view and end the need for a case? I would hold off on opening the case until this avenue is explored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not as convinced as some of my colleagues that this case will lead to a productive result, but 11-0 to accept is a pretty impressive majority of the entire committee, so the Clerk should go ahead and open the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse --  FayssalF   - Wiki me up® 01:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to enter an official abstain before the case opens. While the dispute may have been prolonged and profoundly enervating (by reference to JzG's statement on WT:RFAr), I get a strong sense that the dispute is really down to deliberate prolongation by one of the parties long beyond a point at which good sense would have said stop. What is needed is not so much an arbitration case (which realistically might extend everything for another four months of lengthy position statements and arguments), but a simple solution agreed or imposed immediately. This might be as Newyorkbrad's suggestion, or not. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Administrators
1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Questioning of administrative actions
2) 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 is acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 11 to 0, 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators not to act unless uninvolved
4) Administrators may not use their administrative tools in any situation unless they are uninvolved. An administrator will be involved, 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 be involved, for the purposes of article-specific tools such as page protection, if they have previously substantively edited the content of the affected article(s).

Administrators should also refrain from action if there is doubt as to whether they are involved, or if they could reasonably be perceived as being involved.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of the spam blacklist
5) 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" (spam blacklist/About, see also Spam blacklist). To a lesser extent it is also used to combat malware links. Each Wikimedia project also has its 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.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct use of dispute resolution
7) There are a wide variety of approaches to dispute resolution, but the principles listed at Dispute resolution requests should be followed, including the advice to "Be clear and descriptive so as to be understood, but also be brief so as to be read." Dispute resolution is hierarchical, and care should be taken to incorporate feedback at each stage and to avoid forum-shopping between similar levels of dispute resolution, unless explicitly asked to take the dispute to a different venue. In particular, the reasons for escalating to a higher level of dispute resolution should be clearly stated.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Communication
8) Imbalances in methods, quality and volume of communications can both overwhelm and underwhelm attempts at communication on Wikipedia. This applies in all areas, not just dispute resolution. If an editor refuses to communicate, or is not communicating with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or fails to focus on the topic being discussed, then this can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Disengaging
9) Disengaging from a topic area and walking away due to a dispute can sometimes be the right decision, but unresolved issues will still need to be addressed. Conduct issues may need to be examined in general terms related to other actions, as well as specific terms related to the action in question. Unresolved content issues can be handled by other editors and this does not require the original parties to remain engaged with the issues. If an admin disengages from a topic area and walks away, they should consider how to handle disputes involving their previous actions in that topic. Sometimes the best way to disengage is to undo disputed actions and let other admins redo the actions if needed.


 * Passed 7 to 2, 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nature of the dispute
1) The main issues in this dispute include:
 * 1) the presence of "lenr-canr.org" and "newenergytimes.com" on the spam blacklist,
 * 2) allegations that  took certain administrative actions while not uninvolved, and
 * 3) the appropriateness of 's pursuit of dispute resolution.


 * Passed 11 to 0, 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

JzG's use of the spam blacklist
3) On 18 December 2008, added "lenr-canr.org"  and "newenergytimes.com", 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 English Wikipedia spam blacklist talk page with respect to "lenr-canr.org", saying "Adding now, and listing here for transparency", and 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.


 * Passed 7 to 2, 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

JzG not an uninvolved administrator with respect to cold fusion articles
4) From time to time, since July 2006, has made a number of substantive content edits to the cold fusion article (list of all contributions), and has participated in a substantive way in a number of discussions on the article's talk page (list of all contributions).

Among these substantive content edits are a number of edits, undertaken over the course of more than a year, removing links to "lenr-canr.org" or "newenergytimes.com".


 * Passed 9 to 0, 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Prior admonition
5) In September 2008, in the C68-FM-SV case,, 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).


 * Passed 8 to 1, 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd's pursuit of dispute resolution
6.1) Since January 2009, has raised allegations of impropriety pertaining to JzG's aforementioned administrative actions in multiple forums all across Wikipedia.  Abd's pursuit of dispute resolution has at times been excessive and repetitive; in particular, Abd neglected to advance the matter up the dispute resolution hierarchy in a timely fashion when it ought to have been obvious to him that the attempted methods of dispute resolution were unproductive.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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) is specifically admonished not to use his administrative tools in any situation unless he is uninvolved, nor to use them to further his position in a dispute.


 * Passed 9 to 2, 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd advised
2.1) is advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes, to incorporate that feedback, and to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at resolution of the dispute before escalating to the next stage of dispute resolution.


 * Passed 9 to 1, 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd urged
2.2) is urged to avoid needlessly prolonging disputes by excessive or repetitive pursuit of unproductive methods of dispute resolution.


 * Passed 9 to 0, 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.