Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

Statement by uninvolved Fritzpoll
This statement is made with the disclaimer that I have been in contact with Abd via e-mail in regards to this dispute. I also commented at the RfC that Jehochman has linked to above. This entire dispute appears to be about inflexibility: JzG will not engage specifically with the issue presented by Abd as the result of a personal perception of Abd's motives. In a sense this is understandable, but it gives the appearance of obstinacy when faults are pointed out. Since administrators are not infallible (or meant to be), I don't think we'd be here if JzG just said that he regretted giving the impression of bias, and will strive not to do it again. We could end this drama here and now if he just says that in a statement to this RfAr, and we can all settle back to what we're doing. For Abd's part, there are some issues. I have no doubt that Abd has the best interests of the project at heart - absolutely none. However, the means by which he goes about defending the project leave a lot to be desired at times, with mentions of arbitration from the get-go, and an apparent unwillingness to compromise on views when faced with overwhelming opposition about them. Such behaviour exists beyond this request, and it may be worth examining so that Abd gets feedback from the Committee and the community on this issue. Overall, it is worth looking at both parties if neither backs down - but we can end the dispute right now with a single sentence from JzG, which would be preferable.

Statement by Durova
As a certifier of the conduct RfC, I urge the Committee to accept this case to examine the conduct of all parties. Specifically, I encourage the Committee to weigh Abd's concerns about administrative recusal at face value, as I did. I do not edit cold fusion and, if anything, am sympathetic toward JzG's POV on the content dispute--but interpretations of policy must not pass through a filter of personal POV. Administrators must not cut corners for the sake of expedience. Additionally, I strongly object to this assertion made by JzG on April 5. JzG did not attempt to contact me about concerns regarding certification prior to making that serious allegation to third parties, nor did he notify me of it afterward. On April 16 I posted objections to that assertion at the RfC; he failed to respond. It is not the first time JzG has assumed bad faith in a public setting and lent the weight of his reputation to divisive accusations which he neither attempted to support with evidence nor attempted to clarify through normal means.
 * Followup: now that JzG has commented at this RFAR, it is worth noting that he still refuses to discuss the basis for RfC at face value. He dismisses my input with additional conjecture: Durova seems to have a bee in her bonnet.  A bonnet is an item of female headgear; to quote Jane Austen (from an era when women wore bonnets and often had difficulty getting taken seriously), "I would rather be paid the compliment of being believed sincere".  Durova  Charge! 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Response to Mathsci: It would have been simple for JzG to have avoided any appearance of impropriety by taking his request to one of the admin boards, disclosing his involvement, and seeking independent review and action. What JzG and Jehochman posit amounts to an argument that WP:UNINVOLVED is dead letter--that only the merit of an administrative decision itself may be subject to review, and that any attempt to question the failure to recuse is presumptively posed in bad faith.  If we allow that rationale in one situation (however meritorious the action may otherwise be), then we must allow it in every situation--and that would be an open door to deliberate abuse of power.  I took Jossi to ArbCom because he weighed in toward administrative consensus at an AE thread while Jossi failed to disclose a prior history of dispute resolution with the Wikipedian whom he was denigrating.  It would be untenable to turn a blind eye to this.  Durova  Charge! 18:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To Newyorkbrad: I also seek a retraction of the canvassing accusation. Durova  Charge! 04:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding JzG's statement above, it is good to see him acknowledge that it would have been better to recuse. I am still waiting to see him retract the canvassing accusation.  Durova  Charge! 04:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Request by uninvolved Rootology
If the committee accepts this, can we please, pretty please, pretty please with a heaping of sugar on top, get some clear guidance on what circumstances in the Proposed Decision it is acceptable for "involved" admins to use tools on articles or on people involved with the articles? This is a constant tug of war, with some admins in favor of looser standards, and what always feels like a growing number of us desiring bright-line boundaries.

Statement by uninvolved Jim62sch
While I have made a couple edits on Cold Fusion (I think), I'm still uninvolved in this case. From what I can see JzG's actions have been appropriate, but Arbcom should be able to decide whether that is true. The uninvolved mantra is an interesting one, but not always relevant. How many of Guys edits were as an editor and how many as an admin trying to diffuse a problematic issue?
 * Disclosure: I know Guy personally, but that has nought to do with my above comments. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Verbal
Abd is a problematic editor and I fully encourage ArbCom to review his actions and take action to stop him from continuing his disruption, proxy editing for banned editors, process lawyering, threats, and suffocating verbiage which amounts to ownership of certain pages. From what I've seen of JzGs/Guys edits they have been appropriate - he is certainly a lot less "involved" than certain other admins that get involved in more contentious areas. ArbCom should be able to see the truth in this matter easily. Verbal  chat  19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement of partially involved Beetstra
I have been involved in several discussions on de-listing discussions for two involved external links which were blacklisted (or for which blacklisting was requested) by JzG: lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com, and in some whitelisting requests on specific pages on these sites. Most of the de-blacklisting requests have been declined (some by me), one is still open. Whitelisting was granted for one, while all others I have been involved in were either declined or withdrawn.

My take on this sites is based partially on a ruling by our Reliable sources noticeboard (for newenergytimes: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14) which deemed newenergytimes not a reliable source. lenr-canr.org contains mainly copies of articles which are available elsewhere,

When looking at contributions of editors like User:Pcarbonn, I see that they have a huge preference for using sites which are either unreliable sources, or copy-sites like lenr-canr.org. Typical reliable sites are used much, much less (for some accounts, if any).

I have therefore argued lately, that I strongly suspect that these sites were used to give undue weight to the articles they were used in (and basically, that is the thought behind earlier declines as well). Some of the editors, like Pcarbonn, have been banned from these articles just for that reason, giving UNDUE weight. I therefore believe that these sites, when they are used, should be used with a big, red, blinking due care (and maybe it is for the best to keep the sites blacklisted and whitelist specific links after scrutinising them)!

I therefore don't find it unthinkable or far-fetched, especially at the time of blacklisting, that blacklisting these sites could improve the content on Wikipedia (WP:IAR).

De-blacklisting discussions by Abd however have focused on 'procedural errors' and 'JzG is involved, so he should not have added it' (using the latter as another procedural error: delist because he should not have added it). We are, however, not a bureaucracy: "A procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post.". I even question if JzG was involved in the article, or, as an admin, trying to solve the problems with the article in an attempt to improve this article on Wikipedia (or to keep it in good shape). I also still think that the editors who request de-listing (with Abd at the forefront) insufficiently make clear that the site abuse has stopped totally (which would be nice, we don't want abuse to start again), and that we really need these links (or is the article just as good without them), instead involved editors insist in finding scapegoats. Abd's discussion techniques in these (and other) cases is often, to say the least, direct and accusing, seemingly not willing to listen to other arguments, or consider other arguments at least partially valid. It is black ... or white. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Remark to Arbitrators (User:Newyorkbrad specifically): User:JzG has already retracted from Cold fusion (I see 4 edits in over 4 months, last over a month ago), and has not decided (though commented/given his view) on recent de-listing requests. However, it are others (mainly User:Abd) who seek, and re-seek independent review of the blacklisting process when a first, IMHO, independent review (based, again IMHO, on other independent review) declines de-listing (see e.g. diff), and use procedural errors as main reason for delisting.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have notified User:Erwin on-IRC to check his talkpage here (this is not his home wiki). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement of partially involved Dtobias
The spam blacklist has, in my opinion, been abused as a method of enforcing content decisions made by a handful of people without broader community consensus. Intended as a manner of dealing with obvious spam of the "Buy Viagra Now" variety, it's being misused to squelch links to sites judged as too "fringe" or "unreliable" by subjective judgment, removing the ability to decide this from the place it belongs, on individual articles and their talk pages. A tight clique, with JzG a dominant member, decides whether to blacklist or whitelist sites, with a strong tendency to make these decisions with little or no discussion, then insist that a heavy consensus is needed to reverse the decision; and any attempt to bring more than the tiny number of editors who frequent the spam blacklist page into such "consensus" discussions is decried as "canvassing" and "venue shopping". Furthermore, whenever holes are poked in the justifications for any particular spam listing, an ever-shifting set of new rationalizations is concocted to justify keeping sites blacklisted indefinitely. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by outside observer but probably biased Cla68
I'll simply link to my statment in the recent RfC, which statement I stand behind. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Note by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
I was about to close the RfC later today, given the motion to close I proposed on the talk page. If the case is accepted, then I will include that in the summary of the RfC; the only other place this could have escalated to was ANI. At this point, I have nothing much to add than that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci
I have never edited cold fusion, but am aware as a research scientist that the mirror site lenr-canr.org is run by a promoter of fringe science, with no formal scientific training at the required level. It seems quite clear that what is on the site cannot be used for writing encyclopedia articles on a subject which in most professional scientific circles has been declared defunct. Blacklisting the site was one way to proceed, although perhaps this should not have been done by JzG himself. This possible procedural faux-pas has now been used by Abd in a long-planned attack here, backed by Durova. I am very puzzled why this particular issue has been pushed so far (or indeed why it is Jehochman that has initiated this particular request). It could reflect frustration that the editing of fringe science and in particular cold fusion has been reined in on wikipedia, in line with the real world and mainstream science. On the RfC, there were two extremes of behaviour: non-participation and silence from JzG; and interminable screeds of unreadable prose and spurious accusations from Abd on the RfC talk pages. (User:Coppertwig has argued that Abd has ADHD.) ArbCom could presumably rule on blacklisting, but in a very general way, since in this particular case there is a convincing argument that it was warranted. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to NYB: Yes, your proposal seems very sensible. On the other hand, Abd's response to your question - "It is unlikely that use of tools while involved has been confined to one article or one disliked editor" - suggests that Abd's behaviour should probably be investigated by ArbCom. It looks like he's on a mission. Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by partially involved Ronnotel
I was tangentially involved in some of observed the original blacklist discussions and have contributed occasionally at the Cold fusion page. I disagree with Guy's assertion that either blacklisting had consensus. In fact, newenergytimes.com is now proposed for delisting, an action that appears to have rough consensus at this time. I accept that neither lenr-canr.org nor newenergytimes.com can generally be considered a reliable source. However, we don't use the blacklist to censor content with which we might happen to disagree, which is what I feel happened in this case. Administrators should be careful to use their tools to sanction behavior, not content.
 * Jehochman speaks of Guy's "loss of face" being a deterrent preventing him from taking the correct administrative action. Since when are administrators allowed to put their vanity ahead of their duty? I thought the whole point of being an admin was checking your ego at the door. - Further comment: of paramount importance when using the tools is get each and every action correct. Anyone who might feel 'humiliation' at the thought of undoing any such act in order to get to the correct result would probably be better off not using the tools in the first place. Ronnotel (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by "ghost of incivility past" Alecmconroy
I haven't been particularly actively lately on wikipedia (due mostly to fatherhood! yay!!!), so as an mostly-inactive user these days, a grain of salt is in order.

I think it's non-controversial to say that JzG has, in times past, been habitually incivil. I'm not involved in the cold fusion dispute-- no comment for or against Abd or the underlying content dispute. But it seems to me that the "final warning" that was issued to JzG hasn't succeeding in changing his behavior.

Within 30 seconds of seeing this page, I quickly find JzG accusing other users of being ADHD or Autistic. Ad hominem attacks are repugnant; alleging that those you disagree with suffer from developmental disorders is even more disgusting. And if the person he's attacking actually does suffer from ADHD-- that's even more cruel-- to try to use someone's own self-admission of medical problems as a way to try to dismiss the validity of their views by suggesting they are mentally incompetent and unable to participate in rational discourse.

And of course, the autistic & ADHD thing is just one of many many many such personal attacks. I'm a multitude of other examples exist.

Incivility among random users may not be much of a problem-- if two ip address editors start calling each other names, I think the damage is probably pretty limited. But an administrator, in some ways, speaks _for_ the encyclopedia, applies our policies and, theoretically, serves as an example to others.

When an admin, such as JzG, is habitually incivil, I believe that they leave behind them a trail of demotivated wouldbe contributors. It's easy to look at the admin actions and see how many positive things an individual has done in their tenure as admin. Harder to see is the multitude of toes that may have been stepped on along the way. Harder to see is all the good work that would have gotten done, all the positive contributions that would have been made by all the individuals who were bitten by an incivil admin. Harder to see are all the people who read discussions and realized that extreme levels of incivility-- levels that that would get a novice blocked on sight-- such incivility can be condoned and even encouraged if the person is an admin or has the right friends.

Hardest of all to see is the potential for users that, if not disheartened by incivil admins, would have gone on to become admins themselves and dedicated huge portions of their time to the project.

And as always-- JzG is in no way a "bad" person or a "bad editor" and really, his persistent incivility isn't even really JzG's "fault", -- it's our fault for letting it get to this point. JzG has his admin style-- it's combative, some people don't like his style, but thus far it has always served him well. JzG loves Ad Hominem arguments-- so have many of histories greatest orators and leaders. Some people group-hug to resolve disputes, some people hurl insults-- but both instincts are natural.

The question is for us-- do we want our admins to exhibit this level of incivility or not? If we choose to allow the chronically incivil to remain admins, then we implicitly condone that behavior, we should expect more of it in the future.

Alternatively, if we don't want our admins to be incivil, then we should desysop those who continue, despite warnings, to be incivil. If we choose that course, and stick to it, then soon admins will recognize that choice has been made, and in time our admin corps will be free of any chronic incivility.

Incivility or abuse from administrators is, for me, probably the most poisonous single aspect I've encountered of the wikipedia community. I suspect it's a major barrier that prevents people making the jump from "occasional editor" to "hardcore, full-time-editing, foundation-donating, wikimania-attending, wikipedia addict".

Controversial, chronically incivil admins cost us _far_ more than the relatively minor benefit that comes from them having the admin bit. There's plenty of work to do on the project that doesn't require admin tools-- why ask that one of the less civil members of the community attempt the extremely difficult, very frustrating role of admin? Instead, let's leave the adminning to the people who have an easier time fulfilling the role of being a "trusted, unbiased, non-controversial, respectful, and civil member of the community."

--Alecmconroy (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
Screenshot of Talk:Cold fusion in 9 April. Abd's comments are colored in light blue.

I have to say that Abd has good insights and it's good to work with him... until you try to stumble upon something that he doesn't agree with, in which case he will engage in long long looong meandering argumentations that can finish your patience as he examines and twists any argumentation or source put forward. The good points get regretfully lost in walls of text as he tries to push some pre-conceived view of how the world should be.

As others have pointed out, Abd writes too long comments rehashing old arguments, changing topic several times in the same comment, writing as he thinks, etc. My particular complaint is that his comments have filled Talk:Cold fusion, dominating other commenters by sheer size. He also appears to believe that writing a lot means that he is working a lot. Also, insistance that there is no problem with putting very long comments in talk pages because people can choose not to read them, despite all the people telling him that it's annoying and that he should try to write shorter comments.

About Jed's ban, Abd doesn't like the ban, he keeps trying to run loops around it, and he keeps trying to insert Jed's comments while insisting that ban is not valid (see latest discussion).

I keep having the disturbing sensation that all this trouble is being caused only by Abd's refusal to accept wikipedia's rules and consensus.

JzG was following the principles of the Fringe Science arb case, he was not imposing any POV because science does not have a POV, so there is not a Scientific Point Of View (SPOV), and find that editors can be disruptive in the absence of "outright grossly violating civility expectations", and disrupting by simply refusing to accept consensus.

Abd's behaviour brings another principle to mind, that of using WP:DR to exhaust other editors. He takes ages to move to the next step while still making long arguments where he repeats the same arguments all the time; this is not helpful and he still believes that his behaviour is totally correct. Very revelant here, it took severe prodding and this MfD to finally get him to post JzG's 3rd RfC. I think that JzG did the correct thing by choosing to disengage from this. --

Comment by Spartaz
I have been highly active in the RFC and also closed a lengthy discussion from Abd complaining about JzG and the blacklisting at ANI. In the latter case I tried to engage with Abd and show them that they were beating a dead horse but disengaged when Abd started to attack my motives and engaged in mild personal attacks.

The basic tenet of dispute resolution is that editors who cannot resolve a dispute should disengage and that is exactly what Guy has done. There is no credible evidence that Guy continues to use administrative tools while engaged and, while there might be arguable concerns about the original blacklisting, the action has been de facto endorsed by meta admins, who have decided to blacklist themselves and discussed ad nauseum at ANI. Guy has not acted as an administrator in subsequent black/whitelisting discussions and the topic ban of Jed Rothwell was tacitly endorsed by the committee when Guy listed it for clarification.

While Guy seems to be someone who generates opinions about their actions, the evidence is that this a dispute that is only ongoing because Abd continues to wage a relentless vendetta against Guy and is refusing to see that the horse has been flogged to death. Their actions have now gone way beyond harassment.

Since it is clear that the case is going to be accepted, I hope the committee will seriously consider the real locus of the dispute, which is Abd's refusal to let this go and seriously consider appropriate measures to stop the harassment - including a topic ban preventing Abd from interacting with or discussing Guy in any way. (Similar to Everykings ban from Phil Sandifer).

I strongly urge the committee to pass an immediate injunction requiring Abd to confine all comment and discussion of Guy and his actions to the arbitration pages so that this long running waste of time is consigned to one location and does not spill over to disrupt activity elsewhere on the project.

Comment by Badger Drink
As should be patently obvious to everybody, the success of an encyclopedia is measured in the percentage of people who feel good about themselves during its creation, and not (allow me to repeat for emphasis: NOT) the "quality" of the content within ("quality", mind you, as determined by the oppressive, facist dictatorship-cum-clique of Big $cience). A 9th grader can tell you, quite plainly, that truth is entirely relative - like beauty, truth is in the eye of the beholder, and there is obviously no such thing as objective fact. As such, I recommend ArbCom accept the case with the premeditated intent of permanantly banning JzG, whose rude statements and occasional bending of the rules to suit his nefarious POV threaten to drive off excellent contributors whose only desire in Wiki-life is to make sure that the figurative "child in Africa" knows full-well from reading this magical project that tribal superstition and other such flim-flam is on equal footing with the conclusions of well-trained scientists - and, as a nod to JzG's tyrannical disregard towards bureaucratic process, I urge that ArbCom deliver an eye for an eye, and trump the WP:RfA process by declaring Abd an admin, recognizing his commendable attitude and dedication to the true focus of this encyclopedia project. Badger Drink (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jtrainor
This seems like it would be easily handled by merely topic banning Abd from both cold fusion articles and JzG. Jtrainor (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by DGG
I am in total agreement with JzG's view of the scientific issues involved with cold fusion. I consider the NPOV identical with the SPOV, and therefore am not in agreement with his efforts to suppress sources and websites of borderline reliability, for NPOV/SPOV is supported when the fringe side of things is permitted to make whatever case they can. Some of the other science-minded editors here have a different view on this, and they need to rethink it, for normally the attempt to restrict the other side indicates a lack of confidence in the strength of one's case.

The important issue in the case however is the requirement for a n admin to be non-involved. JzG has no business at all to take any admin action whatever on cold fusion or other pseudoscience or fringe science topic. He especially does not have the right to take admin action with respect to cold fusion, where he blacklisted a site to support his view in an argument. That his view is correct is irrelevant. I don;t think he should take any admin action with respect to pseudoscience or fringe science at all; the quality of the action is irrelevant. It decreases the already somewhat wanting confidence in administrative action here.

A secondary issue is the use of abusive personal comments by JzG, which would or should be blockable in an ordinary editor. An editor who makes reference to possible disabilities of another editor in arguing against him should not be contributing on Wikipedia at all, let alone an admin, who is expected to be exemplary in this respect.

I am not arguing on behalf of AbD, and I do not defend his persistent efforts to impose his own POV on the articles. But whatever the committee decides to do with respect to AbD, JzG should be at least warned never to use admin action in support of his own position in a subject area where is is involved, and given a final warning that such abusive language as he used in this matter will result in deadmin, block, or both. DGG (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)