Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 03:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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. Examples of involvement in disputes will be presented; it is irrelevant whether these might or might not violate any other policy or guideline.

Desired outcome
The community affirms that action while involved is improper, and confirms that JzG has done this. JzG assures the community that he recognizes the impropriety, 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.

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".)
 * This edit was reverted by Pcarbonn correcting JzG's misunderstanding.

JzG went on to make a total of 64 edits to Cold fusion, through January 30, 2009.

This is a list of all edits by JzG of Cold fusion from article creation to 00:01 Jan 30, 2009, with diffs, except that a self-reverted pair of edits isn't shown.


 * 00:01, 30 January 2009 (POV and unreliable source)
 * 09:25, 26 January 2009 (?Further developments: "Count the papers" is an attempt to undermine the facts. Not needed.)
 * 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)
 * 21:14, 19 December 2008 (Reverted to revision 259027206 by Pvkeller; This reads as more in line with WP:UNDUE and WP:V. We know the issues with the fringe advocates, and restoring balance is absolutely where we shoudl be, not prote)
 * 23:21, 18 December 2008 (remove redundant ref to unreliable source)
 * 21:53, 18 December 2008 (?Bibliography: removing polemic, copyvio links ec.)
 * 20:57, 18 December 2008 (Unlinking a polemical site inappropriate for references (and in some cases hosting copyright material in violation of copyright))
 * 11:50, 16 November 2008 (that is the main thrust of the conclusion.)
 * 19:37, 27 October 2008 (It's OR to use the term peer-reviewed here.)
 * 19:37, 27 October 2008 (contaxt)
 * 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)
 * 12:46, 24 July 2008 (WP:UNDUE - surface and coatings technology is a very low impact journal indeed.)
 * 12:45, 24 July 2008 (?Further reading: removing sites which fail WP:EL - polemical sites which serve to advance an agenda are not appropriuate "further reading", look for mainstream sources not POV ones.)
 * 10:23, 24 July 2008 (Enough of this POV-pushing)
 * 06:50, 24 July 2008 (Per WP:COIN, Pcarbonn has admitted to a years-long campaign to use Wikipedia to fix the real workd perspective of this subject, Once again, restoring the FA version.)
 * 10:48, 20 April 2008 (?Ongoing controversy: And this is a source accessible to the general reader which nicely illustrates several points made by the pro-CF people about the reception they get.)
 * 10:46, 20 April 2008 (sorry about that, too many windows open)
 * 10:44, 20 April 2008 (?Ongoing controversy: oops)
 * 10:44, 20 April 2008 (not sure why this is not mentioned, these are accessible to the general reader)[]
 * 10:36, 20 April 2008 (?Moving beyond the initial controversy: many cold fusion researchers failed to duplicate the experiment and ar ehappy, ity's only the advocates who claim suppression)
 * 10:34, 20 April 2008 (?Ongoing controversy: some context, whihc is important)
 * 10:27, 20 April 2008 (removing site that is polemical,. unreliable, and in many cases the linked content was copyright violations)
 * 10:24, 20 April 2008 (so they might have been, but the site is full of copyright violations, editorialises the material it hosts, and is not a reliable source.)
 * 17:06, 8 March 2008 (links should be uncontroversial)
 * 22:59, 2 January 2008 (Reverted to revision 181726252 by MigFP; I have explained, at length, why we should not use a CHERRY PICKED PARAGRAPH. Use the conclusion or use nothign. (TW))
 * 22:48, 2 January 2008 (Remove a cherry-picked para form deep inside the report which is being deliberately moisrepresented as its conclusionm)
 * 12:48, 1 January 2008 (a bit excessive, in a reference summary. Preserve sense.) [edit to protected article]
 * 12:42, 1 January 2008 (This is clearly a mistake, since the quoted text does not match the source at all. I have rpleaced it with the actual text direct form the source, as a simple correction of a factual error.) [edit to protected article]
 * 21:39, 31 December 2007 (Reverted to revision 181234840 by Michaelbusch; No, we can quote the source when we are discussing the source.)
 * 16:52, 31 December 2007 (This is what the conclusion actually says, their words are probably better than ours.)
 * 20:28, 30 December 2007 (Pons and Fleischmann's experiment: they said, not fact)
 * 21:02, 28 December 2007 (reorder. Lead should end with the dominant view.)
 * 12:19, 27 December 2007 (Ah yes, we were so busy linking Jed Rothwell's editorialised version that we forgot to link the real thing)
 * 14:35, 26 December 2007 (The problem is, unless we say where we got this list form, we appear to be engaging in original research, going out and finding lists of papers. This way we source the cites to an authority.)
 * 14:19, 26 December 2007 (whether they are cited by the DOE is irrelevant. There are articles in peer-reviewed journals, and that's enough to support the statement.)
 * 12:20, 26 December 2007 (News: 404)
 * 12:19, 26 December 2007 (that sets the tone well.)
 * 12:17, 26 December 2007 (clean this up and add context)
 * 12:16, 26 December 2007 (probably redundant to the para above. Remove "see also" as it appears to be drawing a conclusion from listing the papers, which would be a onvel synthesis)
 * 2:14, 26 December 2007 (That seems relevant)
 * 12:11, 26 December 2007 (Books: No reason given for removing this. I know it coulod not possibly be because these sources are sceptical, what was the reason I wonder?)
 * 10:54, 26 December 2007 (yes, it's sourced from the DoE reviews, and as to not being significant, in what way is it not significant that virtually nobody believes it?)
 * 10:40, 26 December 2007 (It has been established that this site is not reliable, includes editorial inthe papers, and has no apparent leave to use copyright material)
 * 10:23, 26 December 2007 (Someone seems to be working very hard to obscure this fact.)
 * 10:21, 26 December 2007 (Continuing efforts: removing those with no citation to a peer-reviewed publication.)
 * 15:30, 24 December 2007 (Reverted to revision 179883451 by ScienceApologist; Very suybstantial changes moving well away fomr the mainstream and towards the same problems that were identified before. using TW)
 * 22:11, 23 December 2007 (Unjustified; this is based on an FA, failure to adequately promote a finrge view is not grounds for a POV tag)
 * 16:10, 22 December 2007 (Reverted to revision 179482129 by SmackBot; New energy times is not a "proper source". using TW)
 * 17:14, 21 December 2007 (Reverted to revision 179413802 by Pcarbonn; New Energy Times and other such cruft? Please, no.. using TW)
 * 17:11, 20 December 2007 (removing content copyright hosted by a site other than the rights owner with no evidence of permission per WP:C)
 * 7:07, 20 December 2007 (No evidence of permission to host this copyright work, per WP:C)
 * 17:04, 20 December 2007 (fmt)
 * 17:03, 20 December 2007 (Misrepresentation. That is an editorial about the report, not the report itself)
 * 00:26, 12 December 2007 (sp) [edit to protected article]
 * 00:02, 12 December 2007 (sp) [edit to protected article]
 * 00:02, 12 December 2007 (per talk) [edit to protected article]
 * 14:07, 8 December 2007 (External links: pruning links)
 * 14:04, 8 December 2007 (External links: Hmm. That one smells strongly of kook to me)
 * 20:44, 6 December 2007 (OK, I know this is extreme, but there has been so much back and forth that baby and bathwater are no longer separable, so I am restoring the FA version.)
 * 20:21, 6 December 2007 m (Protected Cold fusion: Anon threastens to continue POV-pushing [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 20:21, January 6, 2008 (UTC)))
 * 20:20, 6 December 2007 m (Reverted edits by 64.247.224.24 (talk) to last version by Michaelbusch)
 * 12:50, 7 April 2007 (spammy)
 * 09:15, 7 April 2007 (spam)
 * 00:14, 13 October 2006 m (Pons and Fleischmann's experiment: link)
 * 11:54, 13 July 2006 (Someone does not understand what "evenly split" means. A 2/3 majority against is not "evenly split".)

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)
 * 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)
 * 14:04, 8 December 2007 (External links: Hmm. That one smells strongly of kook to me)
 * 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!)

JzG went on to make a total of 140 edits to Talk:Cold fusion, through January 30, 2009.


 * 1 February 2009 15:01 Talk:Cold fusion (Three Wikipedia's Pillars that don't seems respected at the voice Cold fusion: archiving, unhelpful)[]
 * 1 February 2009 15:00 Talk:Cold fusion (Jed Rothwell currently indefinitely blocked: comment)[]
 * 30 January 2009 20:28 Talk:Cold fusion (Protected Talk:Cold fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=267447809 ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 20:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 20:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC))))[]
 * 29 January 2009 23:53 Talk:Cold fusion (Meaningless Break: WP:RBI)[]
 * 28 January 2009 21:47 Talk:Cold fusion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments: comment)[]
 * 26 January 2009 9:27 Talk:Cold fusion (copy of edit by Gen ato: more)[]
 * 26 January 2009 9:23 Talk:Cold fusion (copy of edit by Gen ato: reply)[]
 * 26 January 2009 9:21 Talk:Cold fusion (Meaningless Break: more)[]
 * 26 January 2009 9:20 Talk:Cold fusion (Topic ban reminding: reply)[]
 * 31 December 2008 10:52 Talk:Cold fusion (Jed Rothwell: new section)[]
 * 31 December 2008 10:51 Talk:Cold fusion (Why was reference to Szpak et al (2004) and (2005) removed?: WP:RBI)[]
 * 19 December 2008 21:09 Talk:Cold fusion (Jed's travelling IP roadshow: Archiving, sheds more heat than light.)[]
 * 27 October 2008 19:28 Talk:Cold fusion (Tags: sp)[]
 * 27 October 2008 18:44 Talk:Cold fusion (Tags: comment)[]
 * 24 July 2008 13:48 Talk:Cold fusion (Administrator's Noticeboard discussion over JzG's revert to 2004 version: reply)[]
 * 24 July 2008 13:46 Talk:Cold fusion (Administrator's Noticeboard discussion over JzG's revert to 2004 version: reply)[]
 * 24 July 2008 13:46 Talk:Cold fusion (Lead: new section)[]
 * 23 April 2008 11:37 Talk:Cold fusion (lenr-canr: replies)[]
 * 21 April 2008 17:47 Talk:Cold fusion (lenr-canr: new section)[]
 * 21 April 2008 17:38 Talk:Cold fusion (lenr-canr.org: reply)[]
 * 20 April 2008 12:14 Talk:Cold fusion (lenr-canr.org: reply)[]
 * 20 April 2008 10:30 Talk:Cold fusion (lenr-canr.org: new section)[]
 * 22 February 2008 9:06 Talk:Cold fusion (Relevance of Todd Rider thesis: reply)[]
 * 27 January 2008 21:15 Talk:Cold fusion (Newsbyte in Nature: reply)[]
 * 27 January 2008 11:26 Talk:Cold fusion (Let there be Light: completely irrelevant)[]
 * 24 January 2008 21:07 Talk:Cold fusion (Newsbyte in Nature: comment)[]
 * 11 January 2008 19:43 Talk:Cold fusion (forgot?: reply)[]
 * 9 January 2008 18:13 Talk:Cold fusion (Cold Fusion Decision: remove ramble)[]
 * 9 January 2008 18:11 Talk:Cold fusion (archive box code)[]
 * 8 January 2008 23:36 Talk:Cold fusion (Pathological Science: reply)[]
 * 7 January 2008 23:35 Talk:Cold fusion (Pathological Science: comment)[]
 * 7 January 2008 23:30 Talk:Cold fusion (Shoud wikipedia present the view of most scientists ?: reply)[]
 * 3 January 2008 9:47 Talk:Cold fusion (Mediation: new section)[]
 * 3 January 2008 9:31 Talk:Cold fusion (Mediation (take 2): reply)[]
 * 3 January 2008 16:42 Talk:Cold fusion (Shoud wikipedia present the view of most scientists ?: reply)[]
 * 3 January 2008 15:56 Talk:Cold fusion (Shoud wikipedia present the view of most scientists ?: reply)[]
 * 3 January 2008 15:51 Talk:Cold fusion (Shoud wikipedia present the view of most scientists ?: reply)[]
 * 3 January 2008 15:46 Talk:Cold fusion (Shoud wikipedia present the view of most scientists ?: reply)[]
 * 3 January 2008 13:00 Talk:Cold fusion (Report summary: reply)[]
 * 3 January 2008 12:53 Talk:Cold fusion (Shoud wikipedia present the view of most scientists ?: reply)[]
 * 3 January 2008 12:50 Talk:Cold fusion (Shoud wikipedia present the view of most scientists ?: reply)[]
 * 3 January 2008 12:46 Talk:Cold fusion (Shoud wikipedia present the view of most scientists ?: reply)[]
 * 3 January 2008 0:04 Talk:Cold fusion (benefit *from* peer-reviewed: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 23:57 Talk:Cold fusion (benefit *from* peer-reviewed: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 23:30 Talk:Cold fusion (benefit *from* peer-reviewed: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 23:01 Talk:Cold fusion (Report summary: new section)[]
 * 2 January 2008 16:07 Talk:Cold fusion (Experiments: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 16:05 Talk:Cold fusion (Experiments: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 16:03 Talk:Cold fusion (Error of fact: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 15:33 Talk:Cold fusion (Error of fact: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 15:03 Talk:Cold fusion (The DoE did recommend further research: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 14:50 Talk:Cold fusion (Reorder: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 14:24 Talk:Cold fusion (Reorder: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 13:25 Talk:Cold fusion (Error of fact: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 13:21 Talk:Cold fusion (archiving: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 13:20 Talk:Cold fusion (Reorder: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 12:34 Talk:Cold fusion (Error of fact: reply)[]
 * 2 January 2008 12:14 Talk:Cold fusion (Cold Fusion = CANR??: reply)[]
 * 1 January 2008 23:31 Talk:Cold fusion (Experiments: comment)[]
 * 1 January 2008 23:29 Talk:Cold fusion (Condensed matter nuclear science: reply)[]
 * 1 January 2008 20:45 Talk:Cold fusion (Error of fact: clarify)[]
 * 1 January 2008 20:44 Talk:Cold fusion (Error of fact: reply)[]
 * 1 January 2008 19:09 Talk:Cold fusion (Error of fact: reply)[]
 * 1 January 2008 17:59 Talk:Cold fusion (dispute: intro wording: reply)[]
 * 1 January 2008 17:47 Talk:Cold fusion (Error of fact: reply)[]
 * 1 January 2008 14:52 Talk:Cold fusion (Condensed matter nuclear science: done)[]
 * 1 January 2008 12:52 Talk:Cold fusion (Error of fact: new section)[]
 * 1 January 2008 12:47 Talk:Cold fusion (US federal funding: reply)[]
 * 1 January 2008 12:38 Talk:Cold fusion (dispute: intro wording: reply)[]
 * 1 January 2008 12:35 Talk:Cold fusion (Experiments: reply)[]
 * 1 January 2008 0:38 Talk:Cold fusion (US federal funding: reply)[]
 * 31 December 2007 23:36 Talk:Cold fusion (dispute: intro wording: more)[]
 * 31 December 2007 23:33 Talk:Cold fusion (misleading edit summaries: reply)[]
 * 31 December 2007 23:04 Talk:Cold fusion (dispute: intro wording: comment)[]
 * 31 December 2007 22:02 Talk:Cold fusion (US federal funding: more)[]
 * 31 December 2007 21:56 Talk:Cold fusion (US federal funding: reply)[]
 * 31 December 2007 21:52 Talk:Cold fusion (misleading edit summaries: more)[]
 * 31 December 2007 21:42 Talk:Cold fusion (misleading edit summaries: reply)[]
 * 31 December 2007 1:30 Talk:Cold fusion (The DoE did recommend further research: reply)[]
 * 30 December 2007 20:19 Talk:Cold fusion (familiarity straw poll: reply)[]
 * 30 December 2007 20:11 Talk:Cold fusion (Add archive bot flag)[]
 * 29 December 2007 11:33 Talk:Cold fusion (Lack of parity and lack of controversy: reply 2)[]
 * 29 December 2007 11:30 Talk:Cold fusion (Lack of parity and lack of controversy: reply)[]
 * 28 December 2007 20:59 Talk:Cold fusion (Lack of parity and lack of controversy: reply)[]
 * 27 December 2007 9:11 Talk:Cold fusion (Vote: reply)[]
 * 26 December 2007 20:09 Talk:Cold fusion (what happened to transmutation?: reply)[]
 * 26 December 2007 20:07 Talk:Cold fusion (Cold Fusion = IMPOSSIBLE: reply)[]
 * 26 December 2007 20:04 Talk:Cold fusion (Sentence in intro: more)[]
 * 26 December 2007 19:14 Talk:Cold fusion (Sentence in intro: reply)[]
 * 26 December 2007 14:46 Talk:Cold fusion (Sentence in intro: reply)[]
 * 26 December 2007 12:20 Talk:Cold fusion (Question: reply)[]
 * 26 December 2007 12:07 Talk:Cold fusion (Sentence in intro: reply)[]
 * 26 December 2007 12:05 Talk:Cold fusion (Links to copy of article on New Energy Times ?: apart from...)[]
 * 26 December 2007 10:56 Talk:Cold fusion (Question: more)[]
 * 26 December 2007 10:19 Talk:Cold fusion (Question: reply)[]
 * 24 December 2007 18:22 Talk:Cold fusion (Moving the article forward: reply)[]
 * 24 December 2007 16:02 Talk:Cold fusion (Moving the article forward: reply)[]
 * 23 December 2007 22:10 Talk:Cold fusion (POV tag: reply)[]
 * 22 December 2007 16:24 Talk:Cold fusion (Checking sources: nope)[]
 * 22 December 2007 16:13 Talk:Cold fusion (Is the DOE a reliable secondary source ?: reply)[]
 * 21 December 2007 23:00 Talk:Cold fusion (Checking sources: more)[]
 * 21 December 2007 22:58 Talk:Cold fusion (Cold Fusion Decision: section)[]
 * 21 December 2007 22:57 Talk:Cold fusion (Cold Fusion Decision: seems OK)[]
 * 21 December 2007 22:54 Talk:Cold fusion (Checking sources: reply)[]
 * 21 December 2007 17:13 Talk:Cold fusion (Checking sources: more)[]
 * 21 December 2007 17:12 Talk:Cold fusion (Checking sources: reply)[]
 * 21 December 2007 0:05 Talk:Cold fusion (Cold Fusion Decision: reply)[]
 * 20 December 2007 19:33 Talk:Cold fusion (Cold Fusion Decision: reply)[]
 * 20 December 2007 17:12 Talk:Cold fusion (Cold Fusion Decision: reply)[]
 * 20 December 2007 17:10 Talk:Cold fusion (Checking sources: more)[]
 * 20 December 2007 17:06 Talk:Cold fusion (Checking sources: new section)[]
 * 18 December 2007 18:56 Talk:Cold fusion (Cold Fusion Decision: sp)[]
 * 18 December 2007 18:56 Talk:Cold fusion (Cold Fusion Decision: more)[]
 * 18 December 2007 18:53 Talk:Cold fusion (Cold Fusion Decision: comment)[]
 * 18 December 2007 18:49 Talk:Cold fusion (Summarising the relevant scientific papers: reply)[]
 * 17 December 2007 23:22 Talk:Cold fusion (Summarising the relevant scientific papers: reply)[]
 * 14 December 2007 9:45 Talk:Cold fusion (Arbitration: comment)[]
 * 14 December 2007 19:04 Talk:Cold fusion (Summarising the relevant scientific papers: reply)[]
 * 14 December 2007 15:36 Talk:Cold fusion (Future studies: reply)[]
 * 12 December 2007 23:45 Talk:Cold fusion (Information suppression: comment)[]
 * 12 December 2007 23:41 Talk:Cold fusion (Information suppression: obviously)[]
 * 12 December 2007 13:32 Talk:Cold fusion (Information suppression: reply)[]
 * 12 December 2007 0:10 Talk:Cold fusion (Talk page semiprotected: more)[]
 * 12 December 2007 0:09 Talk:Cold fusion (Talk page semiprotected: new section)[]
 * 12 December 2007 0:06 Talk:Cold fusion (Protected Talk:Cold fusion: Spamming and abuse from website owner [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 00:06, January 12, 2008 (UTC)))[]
 * 12 December 2007 0:04 Talk:Cold fusion (Full protection: comment)[]
 * 12 December 2007 0:03 Talk:Cold fusion (Can there be a disambiguation page link here?: done)[]
 * 12 December 2007 0:00 Talk:Cold fusion (Information suppression: reply)[]
 * 10 December 2007 23:39 Talk:Cold fusion (Full protection: more)[]
 * 10 December 2007 23:36 Talk:Cold fusion (Full protection: reply)[]
 * 10 December 2007 15:13 Talk:Cold fusion (Kook?: comment)[]
 * 10 December 2007 15:12 Talk:Cold fusion (Basis of evaluation: source?)[]
 * 8 December 2007 14:10 Talk:Cold fusion (Being bold: comment)[]
 * 8 December 2007 13:54 Talk:Cold fusion (Killing the CMNS: Removing an attack)[]
 * 7 December 2007 9:05 Talk:Cold fusion (Being bold: REPLY)[]
 * 7 December 2007 15:44 Talk:Cold fusion (Being bold: reply)[]
 * 7 December 2007 13:10 Talk:Cold fusion (Being bold: reply)[]
 * 6 December 2007 23:56 Talk:Cold fusion (Current to-do list: comment)[]
 * 6 December 2007 20:52 Talk:Cold fusion (Being bold: new section)[]
 * 10 January 2006 17:22 Talk:Cold fusion (Wow, is this ever a blast from the past!)[]

Edits to archives for Talk:Cold fusion

 * 26 December 2007 12:21 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 10 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 12:03 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 12 (missed one)[]
 * 26 December 2007 12:26 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 13 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 19 December 2008 21:09 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 19 (Jed's travelling IP roadshow: new section)[]
 * 1 February 2009 15:01 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 21 (archived)[]
 * 26 December 2007 11:28 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 3 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 12:03 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 4 (missed one)[]
 * 26 December 2007 11:10 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 4 (unlinking Jed Rothwell's links tohis website.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 11:20 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 5 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 11:29 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 6 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 11:19 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 7 (unlinking Jed Rothwell's links tohis website.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 10:55 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 8 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 12:22 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 9 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]


 * Many of these edits reveal a strong POV based on trusting information from a friend of his:


 * 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"). He signs IP edits with his name and title, "librarian, lenr-canr.org", which is not a link. (The blacklist, ultimately invoked with these signatures as a justification, does not block them). After 2006 he has voluntarily confined himself to editing Talk pages in compliance with the COI guideline.
 * "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)
 * 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.

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 alleged copyvio
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, "fringe," and "kook," which strikes at its very reason for existence, to reliably 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 is used to reference papers in reliable source. 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 a former 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.

at Cold fusion
 * 21:53, 18 December 2008 (?Bibliography: removing polemic, copyvio links ec.)
 * 20:57, 18 December 2008 (Unlinking a polemical site inappropriate for references (and in some cases hosting copyright material in violation of copyright))
 * 10:27, 20 April 2008 (removing site that is polemical,. unreliable, and in many cases the linked content was copyright violations)
 * 10:24, 20 April 2008 (so they might have been, but the site is full of copyright violations, editorialises the material it hosts, and is not a reliable source.)
 * 10:40, 26 December 2007 (It has been established that this site is not reliable, includes editorial inthe papers, and has no apparent leave to use copyright material)
 * 17:11, 20 December 2007 (removing content copyright hosted by a site other than the rights owner with no evidence of permission per WP:C)
 * 7:07, 20 December 2007 (No evidence of permission to host this copyright work, per WP:C)

at Talk:Cold fusion in archives for Talk:Cold fusion
 * 23 April 2008 11:37 Talk:Cold fusion (lenr-canr: replies)
 * 21 April 2008 17:47 Talk:Cold fusion (lenr-canr: new section)
 * 21 April 2008 17:38 Talk:Cold fusion (lenr-canr.org: reply)
 * 20 April 2008 10:30 Talk:Cold fusion (lenr-canr.org: new section)
 * 21 December 2007 17:13 Talk:Cold fusion (Checking sources: more)
 * 21 December 2007 17:12 Talk:Cold fusion (Checking sources: reply)
 * 20 December 2007 17:10 Talk:Cold fusion (Checking sources: more)
 * 10 December 2007 15:13 Talk:Cold fusion (Kook?: comment)
 * 26 December 2007 12:21 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 10 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 12:03 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 12 (missed one)[]
 * 26 December 2007 12:26 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 13 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 19 December 2008 21:09 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 19 (Jed's travelling IP roadshow: new section)[]
 * 26 December 2007 11:28 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 3 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 12:03 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 4 (missed one)[]
 * 26 December 2007 11:10 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 4 (unlinking Jed Rothwell's links tohis website.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 11:20 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 5 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 11:29 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 6 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 11:19 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 7 (unlinking Jed Rothwell's links tohis website.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 10:55 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 8 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]
 * 26 December 2007 12:22 Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 9 (unlinking offsite copyright problems and promotion of website by site owner.)[]

at Martin Fleischmann at Talk:Martin Fleischmann
 * 10:39 26 December 2007 (It has been established that this site is not reliable, includes editorial inthe papers, and has no apparent leave to use copyright material)
 * 18:43, 17 February 2009 (removal of link to Fleischmann account of history: reply)

at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist
 * 21:25 9 January 2009 (Copyright issues: tweak)
 * 21:23 9 January 2009 (Copyright issues: more)
 * 21:15 9 January 2009 (Copyright issues: reply)
 * 09:09 8 January 2009 (lenr-canr.org: reply)
 * 09:05 8 January 2009 (lenr-canr.org: reply)
 * JzG states his reason why he believes lenr-canr.org hosts copyvio.


 * 09:58 7 January 2009 (lenr-canr.org: Oh FFS.)
 * 21:31 18 December 2008 (lenr-canr.org: +1)
 * 21:13 18 December 2008 JzG (amazonkindlecheap.com: +1)

m:Talk:Spam blacklist
 * 16:20 14 January 2009 (Mike's questions: reply)
 * 10:15 13 January 2009 (Mike's questions: comments)
 * 09:46 13 January 2009 (lenr-canr.org: reply to abd)
 * 22:35 12 January 2009 (Mike's questions: more)
 * 21:23 12 January 2009 (lenr-canr.org: more)
 * 21:04 12 January 2009 (lenr-canr.org: more)
 * 20:26 12 January 2009 (lenr-canr.org: comment)
 * 20:11 12 January 2009(lenr-canr.org: reply)

at Requests for arbitration
 * 22:24, 28 January 2009 (Clarifications and other requests: a reqest)

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..

Powers misused

 * Protection (JzG protection log, all pages):
 * Talk:Cold fusion log
 * 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 cause for this protection, see Statement by JzG], the Addendum re Gen ato.]
 * 00:06, 12 December 2007 ... (expires 00:06, January 12, 2008 ) ... (Spamming and abuse from website owner) [Jed Rothwell]
 * 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 This protection was noticed and a report filed at AN/I.]
 * 12:16, 1 January 2008 Cold fusion research log (POV fork used to evade article protection, not really on.) [Indef full protection]
 * 20:21, 6 December 2007 Cold fusion log (expires 20:21, January 6, 2008 (UTC) ‎(Anon threastens to continue POV-pushing) [at this point it JzG was not "involved" sufficiently to proscribe use of tools.]


 * Deletion (JzG deletion log, all pages):
 * 23:19, 18 December 2008 Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science log (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page: POV-fork now rdirected. Tis Talk page is of no relevance or use.)
 * Most deletions may be uncontroversial (but possibly still improper because of involvement). However, this recent one was abusive, as can be seen from the restored Talk page (now archived). Merges may be undone later and Talk should remain. When this was restored, 25 January, 2009, JzG moved the page to Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science/Archive, edit summaries (Archiving the twaddle) and (archived rampant POV-pushing.)
 * Talk:Cold fusion/wip log
 * User talk:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion log
 * User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion log
 * Talk:Cold fusion/tmp log
 * User:CMNS log This was a registered user, apparently, all contributions have been deleted.

JzG blocked 5 IPs for "block evasion", stating or implying that the edits were by Jed Rothwell, even though two of them are from the wrong geographical area and were unsigned; Jed Rothwell consistently signs his edits.
 * Blocking (JzG block log, all pages):


 * 23:53, 29 January 2009 blocked 68.219.198.240 [1 month] ‎(Block evasion) ...[Jed Rothwell signed edits]
 * 09:16, 26 January 2009 blocked 208.89.102.50 [1 month] ‎(Topic ban and block violations. This is Jed Rothwell.) ...[Jed Rothwell signed edits]
 * 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.]
 * 10:50, 31 December 2008 blocked 69.228.207.247 [1 month] ‎(Block evasion: Jed Rothwell) ...[see above, same editor]
 * 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 signed edits]


 * Protected pages edited
 * 21:31, 18 December 2008 MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist ‎ (+1)
 * 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)
 * 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.


 * An editor considered that there was, here, an incomplete timeline of blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, see discussion at . The list above is not about the process that ensued, but only about the use of admin tools by JzG, and the other events did not involve such usage.

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
 * Deletion and the use of other admin privileges is covered by Admin_abuse


 * 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

Attempt by Abd

 * 19:44, 6 January 2009 (Please remove lenr-canr.org from the spam blacklist)
 * 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?)
 * Request denied.


 * 05:07, 8 January 2009 (Please remove lenr-canr.org from the spam blacklist: please make this objection moot.)
 * 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?)
 * 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)
 * Again called attention to use of tools while involved.
 * Request denied.


 * 23:23, 27 January 2009 (provided evidence re probable block of misindentified editor)
 * 05:07, 2 February 2009 (Talk:Cold fusion: well, you might try asking me!) asked JzG to suggest a mediator.
 * No response.

Attempt by Petri Krohn
Complete discussion, and Petri Krohn's initiation of it.

Attempt by Durova
Confirmation at User talk:JzG of problem with use of tools while involved. Jehochman also commented in this exchange. The complete discussion ended with Durova asking again: ''as I articulated before, the relative merits of either site (or lack thereof) regarding its POV or reliability is not at issue in this query; it's the division between editorial involvement and administrative action. Do you have a response regarding that separation and your interpretation as it applies to this situation?,'' and JzG's response did not address the question, but again asserted the site quality issue.

Community attempt

 * JzG, in response to questions about his blocking of Jed Rothwell, went to ArbComm in an unusual attempt to gain immediate ArbComm support for the actions, see []. He did not disclose his involvement. I filed a comment, and then created an evidence page, User:Abd/JzG, in response to a request that provide evidence. Ultimately, the issue of action while involved was mentioned in:
 * Statement_by_Enric_Naval
 * Statement_by_Abd
 * Statement_by_User:GoRight
 * statement_by_DGG]
 * Statement_by_MastCell
 * Statement_by_Phil153
 * Statement_by_Durova
 * Comment_by_User:Rocksanddirt_re:_admin_recusal
 * Arbitrator_views_and_discussion
 * mentioned by Risker


 * ArbComm did not deliberate the issue of admin involvement, consensus was that the filing was premature and it was rejected. However, this case is cited to show community consensus on action while involved. Of the nine editors mentioning the involvement, one, Enric Naval, did not make any specific comment on it, but was the first to mention it; four others acknowledged or implied the standard that an involved admin not use tools where involved, but did not fault JzG. Risker's comment, for example, was that any other admin could make the issue of action while involved moot. MastCell seemed eager to support JzG's actions, suggesting "that he contact me" next time the occasion arises. Phil153 acknowledged that JzG is an involved administrator with something of a POV on cold fusion, but supported the actions as being made in good faith. Rocksanddirt similarly made a mild statement, While I agree with ABD and DGG above that JzG seems to be an 'involved' user within this subject matter, [... and] while I would like to see less admin action from JzG in these situations, I don't think he's been inappropriate with his actions. However, the other four expressed specific concern.
 * JzG did not acknowledge the issue.


 * After the RfAr was rejected, JzG filed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/JzG, about the file presented to RfAr as evidence. In his nomination, he claims about the RfAr that It was a request for review of a topic-ban of a long-term tendentious editor, and it was endorsed by every arbitrator who commented, which was false (see especially the comment by Carcharoth. However, the ban and the issue of action while involved were separate issues. Several arbitrators initially commented with approval of the ban, but the consensus was that the RfAr was not needed, it was premature. The MfD shows that JzG ignored the issue of use of tools while involved. The evidence page was deleted several days ago, there is a placeholder there. The evidence on the page that was needed has been copied here in collapse boxes).

Prior RfC regarding JzG
Requests for comment/JzG2 Summary: Proceed to ArbComm. See, then, Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV, with the following findings in September, 2008:
 * (C) Over a period of more than one year, JzG persistently directed uncivil comments and personal attacks at other editors. These comments frequently included obscene and vulgar language and abuse. Many of the incivil and offensive comments were contained in edit summaries so that they are permanently logged in page histories. Often, although not always, the inappropriate comments accompanied otherwise proper commentary, edits, or administrator actions, and the comments were often, although again by no means always or nearly always, directed at users exhibiting problematic behavior (but this generally is not a mitigating circumstance). JzG continued to make some of these types of comments even after Requests for comment/JzG2 called his attention to substantial community concern about his style and other users characterized it as conduct unbecoming an administrator.


 * Passed 9 to 0 at 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC).


 * (D) JzG has taken several overly harsh administrator actions and made unnecessarily rude comments to new editors, thereby reducing the chance that these potentially valuable contributors would continue editing Wikipedia.


 * Passed 8 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC).

Focus of present RfC
The most serious incidents reported in this RfC, which is confined to use of tools while involved, took place in December of 2008, with extension into January. JzG since became quite inactive. This RfC, though, is not based on a judgment of JzG's actions overall, but only the specific issue of use of tools while involved, which, in the absence of any acknowledgment of the problem, can be expected to continue. Nevertheless, a review of his related contributions in the specific field of concern, here, show a continuation of prior behavior, and the conflicts exacerbated by the prior behavior continued. Here, though, instead of merely insulting a webmaster or making tendentious -- and later unsupported -- claims of copyright violation, he blacklisted and blocked, much more quietly. The specific issues of the blacklisting and blocks have not been addressed with caution in any neutral forum, and, once gain, this RfC has attempted to avoid the issue of whether JzG was "right" or "wrong," i.e., whether or not some particular action -- or even all actions -- would be later supported or stand. The issue here is extremely simple.

Is use of tools while involved acceptable behavior? If it is not acceptable, how do we address it? Gentle reminders have not worked.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * involved in Jed Rothwell's ban, and in the copyvio and whitelisting discussions. Enric Naval (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --Abd (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Approached JzG at his user talk regarding spam blacklist. Durova Charge! 02:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Approached JzG at his user talk regarding missuse of spam blacklists (see: Misuse of spam filter to enforce POV?, JzG's multiple roles, Complete discussion). Even contacted Jed Rothwell asking for proof of copyright, got responce and posted it on talk page. All this fell to deaf ears. Found working on science reletad issues impossible; abandoned half-finished article in user space and went on to do other things. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My discussion of this matter on his talk page was brushed off with a snarky comment. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see talk page for extended discussion.

Other users who endorse this statement

 * ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether JzG's other actions were justified or not, his use of administrative tools while involved in a content dispute clearly was not. --GoRight (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A heavy hand can get results but that's not how things work at Wikipedia. Wfaxon (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. LirazSiri (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1500+ Admins, Surely 1 uninvolved could have been found. Unomi (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From a reading of the above, Guy's actions and involvement seem to be very heavy-handed, at the least. Achromatic (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Long history of personal attacks and inability to work with other editors. Should lose adminship.
 * Continued abuse of admin tools is a valid reason to have access to those tools rescinded so as to protect wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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.''

See []. All the above complaints have been raised and dismissed previously. There is nothing further to add. Abd has complained at multiple venues about "improper" involvement at, each such complaint has been dismissed. This is just forum shopping.

What it boils down to is this: Abd has a different opinion from me on the content of cold fusion, and is determined for some unaccountable reason to facilitate inclusion of links to a domain run by Jed Rothwell, a major contributor to the article's descent from FA status to POV-tagged arbitration subject. Abd is unwilling to accept that any view but his own has validity. Abd has complained at admin noticeboards, the whitelist and blacklist pages, the Arbitration clarification request board and elsewhere. Every complaint has had the same base premise: nasty admin disagrees with me, therefore nasty admin is evil and abusive. People are allowed to disagree. What they are not allowed to do is to keep asking the same question over and over and over and over again in the desperate hope that the answer might one day change.

Fundamentally, this is a content dispute, and one in which I am taking very little part at the moment. One party, Abd, is obsessed with including links to a website that was abused, misrepresented, has questionable copyright, and is blacklisted at Meta with endorsement after several requests for removal all made by Abd. Abd seems unwilling to accept that. This is somehow my problem?

I have completely disengaged form Abd and his silly crusade on behalf of lenr-canr.org, but he seems unwilling to drop it. Frankly I don't have the time for this continuing foolishness. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Guy (Help!) 08:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Abd should be topic banned from this whole area. The amount of time wasted is unacceptable. Spartaz Humbug! 10:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Fully agree with G and S William M. Connolley (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree - especially with this Abd is unwilling to accept that any view but his own has validity. Where is AE in this matter?  --Shot info (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Hipocrite (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Seeing the continuous amounts of noise and time-wasting from Abd, I'm also thinking some disciplinary action about him may soon be needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Endorse.  More light, less heat, please. &mdash; Lomn 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Endorse. Including crappy fringe sites is not a compromise, it's a mistake. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Endorse Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree.  R. Baley (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Seeing his last responses (2 posts on talkpage) to me, and his former actions, I endorse a topic ban or other disciplinary action (my concern is that this is not the only situation...).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Endorse. Mathsci (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Endorse, though I'd assume more good faith of Abd.  We need to apply the principle "no harm, no foul" to Guy's actions. Jehochman Talk 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Endorse: Abd should be admonished and topic banned from fringe science articles. What a show of bad faith there.  seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Endorse Cardamon (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Endorse  Verbal   chat  09:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Endorse Throwawayhack (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC).
 * 18) Endorse Better sourcing gets results; better whining gets ignored - seems to me that JzG is doing fine. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Endorse, per all the above.  I've thought about mentioning some of this directly to Abd but the risk of a 20 kB stream of consciousness response is a powerful deterrent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Stifle (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Nevard (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Endorse, in light of Abd's insistence that this will continue further. - Bilby (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Daniel (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Eusebeus (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) —  sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Skinwalker (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Endorse per at least the first 6 comments here and SBHB has a point. Franamax (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Secondary comment
@Durova in particular. An admin comes to a dispute following posts to noticeboards. The admin takes a part in working on the problem, being one of POV-pushing which finally makes it to an arbitration that completely endorses tat admin's view that it was POV-pushing. At what point does an admin who has no real outside interest in the subject become "involved"? Jed Rothwell is involved, he's a crusader for WP:TRUTH. I'm not., not in any real sense, other than that there was a dearth of other people prepared to do anything about the abuse of Wikipedia perpetrated by Pcarbonn and Rothwell. Others are now doing that, and you will notice that... guess what? I'm not there any more. This dispute contains one obsessive (Abd) and one person who has disengaged (me). Why should people be asking me again to disengage? Feh. Find more people prepared to push back against the tide of complete bollocks pushed by the fringe science and pseudoscience advocates, or abandon any pretence of being a proper encyclopaedia. How many people do we have to burn out before this is done or we give up? Guy (Help!) 17:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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 Fritzpoll
There was a lot to read here, and one of the first things that strikes me is the dates of the edits. The latest Cold fusion/Talk:Cold fusion edit I can see was over two months ago - why has it taken two months to bring up what essentially amounts to a fairly serious accusation of abuse? The problem for the filer of this dispute is that when these issues have been brought before the community at AN/ANI/ArbCom, nothing has been done. And I mean nothing - no admin has overturned the blacklisting, no consensus has formed to cause an admin to do otherwise and no Arbcom motion or sanction exists that compels Guy's actions to be overturned. Given this, the filers will have to accept that the issue of content in this article and the listing on the blacklist are not an open issue. Debate is always welcome, but there is a risk of appearing not to be listening when people don't agree - it is a perception rather than a reality, I suspect, but perception is all that matters in a community like this. 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: I don't think Guy has acted improperly in performing these actions, since the community has time and again validated them. I do think he could avoid this kind of process if he followed one of the paths above when dealing in areas that he could be accused of involvement with. 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) 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.
 * 1) Fritzpoll (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 3) Agree --Shot info (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Perfect synopsis. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  15:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) PhilKnight (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Very well summed up Enric Naval (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree. Jehochman Talk 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree. - Bilby (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree Cardamon (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Endorse/Agree  Verbal   chat  09:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Endorse especially per Spartaz. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Stifle (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) —  sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse per the author and Spartaz comment. Franamax (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Spartaz
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)
 * 2) Yup William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 5) CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Throwawayhack (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree, this is getting to the point where topic bans are necessary. Enric Naval (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Agree, and will be available for enforcing it if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Agree Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Endorse.  R. Baley (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Agree.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 15) Endorse. Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Tom Harrison Talk 21:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Good advice, though I think Abd should not be sanctioned at this time. Jehochman Talk 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Endorse Cardamon (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Endorse  Verbal   chat  09:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Endorse Yes, please. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Endorse, for the sake of our collective sanity. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Jayjg (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Stifle (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 25) Daniel (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Eusebeus (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) —  sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 29) WMC summarizes nicely at endorse #2. Franamax (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Coppertwig
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, 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.  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."   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."''

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))
 * 2) Abd (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC) (blush). Spectacular, Coppertwig.
 * 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.
 * 4) *Dan T.* (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) DGG (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 7) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Wfaxon (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 11) Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Joe 03:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Pete (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) DGG (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) *Dan T.* (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Abd (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Endorsing the points which are relevant to this RfC.
 * 5) Endorsing the comments regarding the use of administrative tools while involved. --GoRight (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Wfaxon (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) LirazSiri (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Ikip (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Sounds convincing.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Respect DGG's view and agree with his view.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Pete (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Beetstra
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)
 * 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)

View by Durova
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)
 * 2) *Dan T.* (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Abd (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) --GoRight (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Wfaxon (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Unomi (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) LirazSiri (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 11) Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Ikip (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Dlabtot (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Pete (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Dtobias
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)
 * 2) Ikip (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 4) LirazSiri (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Ronnotel
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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 4) LirazSiri (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Endorse along with Abd's and Jehochman's comments above.  --GoRight (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by User:LirazSiri
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. 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)
 * 2) *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 4) amen Ikip (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 6) No personal experience but the diffs provided certainly corroborate this view. Unomi (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Cla68
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,, 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 and  as the evidence that these were banned editor Rothwell was contradictory.
 * Added two links to the spam blacklist without prior discussion
 * 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)

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)
 * 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.
 * 3) *Dan T.* (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Ikip (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC) More abuse, no surprise.
 * 6) --GoRight (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse on all points.
 * 8) Unomi (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --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)

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

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

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.
 * 2) This much is entirely valid. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Unomi (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Failure to answer direct questions constitute disruption.
 * 4) Sheesh how much more evidence do you need? LirazSiri (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Outside view by Jehochman
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 5) As Hipocrite says, and I add JzG's conduct has been improving over time. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Endorse with caveats per Hipocrite --Shot info (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Mostly agree, per Spartaz and others above. Tom Harrison Talk 17:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Stifle (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) per Spartaz above. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Endorse per Hipocrite, Mathsci, Spartaz and TenOfAllTrades. Throwawayhack (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) 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)

Outside view by Hipocrite
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)
 * 2) Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I agree.
 * TL,DR seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "He only does it to annoy, because he knows it teases" Mathsci (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this isn't relevant to the RFC. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Definitely agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Hell yeah --Shot info (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) please make an effort to be concise! Throwawayhack (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) "Keep it pithy".  II  | (t - c) 17:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) 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&#8592;T 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) This is a huge problem, and I wouldn't limit it to talk pages.  Verbal   chat  12:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Summary
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.