Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Abd[edit]

JzG was involved with Cold fusion pushing an anti-fringe POV

What the record presented in RfC/JzG 3 shows is that JzG was deeply involved, and not simply as a neutral administrator intervening occasionally to resolve disputes or fix policy violations, but as an editor with a POV. This is not marginal.

There were 64 article edits by him through January 30, 2009. A few, beginning with his first:

There were also 140 edits to Talk:Cold fusion in the same period. His first shows the origin of his POV, and this history is confirmed by him and expanded in many places.

JzG used admin tools while involved

Protection

20:28, 30 January 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=267447809)
[for specific cause for this 6 mo. protection, see Statement by JzG], the Addendum re Gen ato.]
14:51, 1 January 2008 (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.

Deletion

[page now restored.]

Blocks related to editors of Cold fusion

Jed Rothwell:

Unknown IP editor, apparently mistaken for Rothwell:

Fresh block, during Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3

Prior JzG edit removing alleged "Nuxx bar" comment from RfC.

Protected page edited (Spam-blacklist)

JzG refused to acknowledge involvement or to recuse

discussion on JzG Talk, January 8, 2009: I am not "actively involved" in anything. All I ever did on that article was try to enforce NPOV.

January 13-14, Durova raised the recusal issue. JzG again insisted he was right, expressing a clear and extreme anti-fringe POV, and ignored the recusal question.

[1] is about JzG's deletion of Talk:Condensed matter nuclear science. JzG did agree to recuse in this case. However, the discussion shows his attitude; he seems not to understand that his history with the article was involvement. He justified the deletion under WP:CSD#G8, which blatantly did not apply. (This was a Talk page for the article that JzG had edited and then protected as a redirect.)

When JzG was confronted with comment and requests about recusal, he either denied involvement or ignored it, see [2].

In his final draft statement when this RfAr was opened, JzG did not acknowledge involvement and, instead asserted POV bias on my part, ignoring the many comments from many editors that his actions while involved were improper.

In an edit to Talk for an arbitrator, which has been asserted as evidence that JzG had agreed to avoid further action with respect to Cold fusion, JzG still does not acknowledge action while involved. The RfC was not about Cold fusion, and the desire behind it was not to protect Cold fusion from JzG, but rather the entire project from all possible future actions while involved.

JzG has not shown the civility expected of administrators

His prior behavior was outrageous, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#JzG. While my judgment is that he has continued incivility, though not as blatantly, I would rather not collect that evidence, I am now too involved, some of it being directed toward me, and incivility isn't the central issue here, administrative recusal is.

Other matters

Various issues have been raised in this RfAr and on this Evidence page that, in my opinion, were not ripe for arbitration. False or misleading allegations have been made. I am not responding to most of these. However, I will answer questions that appear from arbitrators regarding any of these matters. --Abd (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Beetstra[edit]

I may go way over 1000 words here, but there is just too much to this case. I am sorry if I do so.

Refactored for length; I don't think I altered the points you were trying to make, but if so, please let me know on the talk page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd's tendency to misinterpret other's statements

  1. This is part of several discussions between me and Abd about 4 links on Abd's talkpage
    • diff my comment
    • Abd's reply where the thread is summarised "This is a novel argument, Beetstra: we should block a web site providing material, allegedly imbalanced, not because of their intention, but because of reluctance of authors or publishers to give permission for hosting, a reluctance allegedly affecting one side of some controversy, on the argument that an imbalance is created."
    This is opposite to a part in my comment concerning this, where I mention: "... Can the site be used in a fringe way? Quite possible/Yes (possibility being true for every site, but we don't blacklist on possible abuse ..)..."
  2. convenience links are fluff, not necessary, not even "content."
    • diff 'Beetstra (and other blacklist admins) have displayed a quite strong opinion that convenience links are fluff, not necessary, not even "content."'
    • diff: Closer to my interpretation, "...in references, the link is a convenience link, not a absolute must, though it is certainly helpful (and I am talking about content space, not about talkpage discussions, yes, it also hampers discussion on talkpages!!)." I even call it 'certainly helpful', quite a more positive interpretation than 'fluff' (I'd like to see where other 'blacklist admins' have given their thoughts on this).

Abd continuous quest for finding independent reviewers in favour of his view

  1. Delisting of newenergytimes.com

Abuse of lenr-canr.org

lenr-canr.org

lenr-canr.org contains mainly copies of articles which have been published elsewhere, and some copies of documents which are unique (the articles being the only online version of the article). Copies of articles which have been published elsewhere are also available from the original locations, but are not always accessible for all users (i.e. users have to pay to see the contents).

The material published elsewhere probably qualifies as reliable, though the original source is a better link. The material where no other online copy is available contain e.g. conference proceedings, which may have use as a reference, but they are generally unsuitable for attribution.

Abuse of newenergytimes.com

newenergytimes.com

Newenergytimes.com contains information available elsewhere (copies of documents), and information written by the site owner (a specialist in the field) and other specialists. Although I expect the information to be correct, the material would probably fail WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, and possibly others (as also asserted here).

Site owner of newenergytimes.com

The site owner has on wikipedia used 3 different accounts: User:Steven Krivit (April 2004), User:Stevenkrivit (October 2004-January 2007), and User:StevenBKrivit (May 2008-January 2009). These socks have not been used in same time periods, or to circumvent blocks, and I am assuming good faith on the reasons of this.

Use and abuse of newenergytimes.com

Moved this list to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG/Evidence/Use_and_abuse_of_newenergytimes.com (version with data similar to this page [3], listing the same as last revid here),

There are more diffs available by editors where material on this site is used in a similar way, or where additions were questionable. The site was simply, next to proper use, abused to give undue weight to the article Cold fusion (and others), abused by site owners, (small scale) spammed cross-wiki. Durova argues below that the ban of Pcarbonn would be enough, but the abuse (again, next to the proper use!) has been long term by several editors and IPs to several articles.

Delisting of newenergytimes.com

Pcarbonn's use of links

I present this here as is, as I have not fully analysed the data. I have parsed every available diff of User:Pcarbonn to main namespace, the template namespace, the category namespace and the user namespace, and compiled this data into Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Pcarbonn. These are, to the best of my knowledge, all external link additions (to sites outside of the wikimedia servers) to the English wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) by User:Pcarbonn. The table also contains 'regular' items to non en.wikipedia.

Blacklisting, blocking and page protection as abuse control measures

Admins have three methods of abuse control available: blocking, protection, and blacklisting. This case has several editors pushing their POV with links to lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com (including several IPs). Blocking all these will mean editors can't edit anymore, especially rangeblocks with collateral damage. Page protection may expand control, but may also not be a full measure, as POV forks have been written, and usage of links was to several articles. Page protection has collateral damage, also disabling editing from innocent IPs. Blacklisting of links is yet another form of control, which can be used when page protection and blocking may not be sufficient (see also the guideline). This would disable the use of questionable links as references (though the content of the documents can still be used), 'forcing' the editors to choose reliable sources. Blacklisting has collateral damage, as it also disables links on such sites which may be of use (there are some usable under certain circumstances!). Whitelisting may be a solution for that problem.

Common practice in discussing, proof for blacklisting

The April log of the MediaWiki:spam-blacklist contains 451 regexes, some grouped into those added in in relation to each other, giving 77 separate logged groups (see [4]). Most regexes block the complete domain, though 8 (1.8%) block specific documents while leaving other links on the server unharmed.

Of these groups:

Leaving 15 undiscussed grouped additions (about 20%).

Or, in regexes:

Leaving 22 undiscussed regexes (6%).

Of added regexes which are added per request, many are not discussed, only reported, see e.g. current version of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

Hence, there is no common practice in discussing blacklisting of links before addition, though I would say, generally on proof of abuse. (I have done my best to count correctly, may have miscounted one or two).

Abd uses (unnecessarily) strong terms in discussions

Response to Durova

Durova here uses the strong words "Beetstra has altered evidence since I wrote the above." I hope Durova meant here "Beetstra has altered his presentation of the evidence since I wrote the above.", as the evidence that I am presenting here supporting possible abuse of newenergytimes.com (which I have been using as an argument agains de-listing since my first de-listing decline) is absolutely still the same evidence, the supporting reasons have never shifted: newenergytimes.org was abused to give undue weight (and actually abused/pushed by the site owner in violation of our conflict of interest and spam guidelines) to several articles by serveral editors, making blacklisting in line with our guideline.

Evidence presented by Durova[edit]

Beetstra's evidence

Within the last day Newenergytimes was removed from the blacklist by a consensus of Wikipedians in which I was not a participant.[5] Agreement on the merits of a policy assessment is very different from agreement on content POV. It would be better to see that distinction articulated in a presentation that invokes my name, particularly since I established that distinction very clearly both at RFAR[6] and at RfC.[7]

Since Pcarbonn has been topic banned from Cold Fusion since 15 December 2008 per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion#Remedies, I fail to see the relevance of Pcarbonn's actions to any current discussion of the blacklist. We don't edit protect articles after the only edit warrior has been blocked, nor is it justifiable to maintain a blacklist entry primarily on the basis of actions by one individual who has been removed from the topic by other means.

Key questions are whether the two sites under discussion satisfy our external linking policy, and whether the site owners or other conflicted parties violated Wikipedia:Spam. A site may fail both WP:RS and WP:NPOV and still be an acceptable external link: the official fan clubs of most celebrities would fit into this category. So long as this fansite isn't used as other than an external link it's perfectly suitable at Paul McCartney. A reader of normal intelligence expects certain external links to be non-neutral: one doesn't go to the Republican National Committee website to read praises of Democrats.

Beetstra has altered evidence since I wrote the above. See here for what I was responding to. One of the difficult things about discussing this blacklisting decision has been that the supporting reasons keep shifting. Eventually those who consider the explanations inadequate see their motives thrown into doubt. There is a considerable danger here of a chilling effect in which editors fear to question the actions of administrators even if those actions are demonstrably wrong. [Place held for diffs and examples].

Evidence presented by TenOfAllTrades[edit]

Reversal of newenergytimes blacklisting was by an involved party

I only bring this up because the removal of newenergytimes from the blacklist has been presented elsewhere as conclusive evidence that JzG abused the blacklist.

The removal from the blacklist (and declaration of consensus in the decidedly non-unanimous blacklist discussion: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#newenergytimes.com) was carried out by Viridae. Viridae, meanwhile, has an established history of conflict with JzG, as noted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Viridae. From the finding of fact, in part:

Viridae has been involved in a series of disputes with JzG and has reverted a disproportionate number of JzG's administrator actions. In view of their disagreements on numerous issues, Viridae has agreed to refrain from reverting any of JzG's administrator actions in the future.

Viridae has declared that that agreement was voluntary and not binding: [8]. Viridae also concluded that declaring a consensus and de-blacklisting were not the role of a "decision-maker" but rather a "functionary", and that the proscription on reverting JzG's actions therefore did not apply: [9].

Of Viridae's four (total) edits to the spam blacklist, two were to reverse JzG's actions — once in this case, once on another occasion: JzG's edit, Viridae's reversal. Viridae has never previously closed a contentious spam blacklist discussion, and is not a regular participant in maintenance of the local spam blacklist.

Evidence presented by Hipocrite[edit]

Abd is incivil

[10]

Abd has operated with an undisclosed conflict of interest

[11]

Abd wikistalks users he is in a conflict with

[12]

Evidence presented by MastCell[edit]

The issue (as regards cold fusion) is already moot

JzG has already indicated that he will take no further administrative action on cold fusion articles ([13]). This assurance was declined as insufficient by Abd ([14]) because of a bigger picture of supposed failure to recuse, reaching beyond cold fusion.

However, the only evidence of a bigger recusal issue presented, to date, is this block. It looks for all the world like someone who disliked Guy as the result of an off-wiki interaction came to Wikipedia to give Guy a hard time (representative contribution from this IP). Having scanned Guy's administrative logs for the past 3-4 months, I see no other instances which jump out as problematic, though I'm open to examining any which others cite. If this block is the only example of the "pattern of ongoing abuse" which compelled this case, then I would suggest that the evidentiary grounds regarding Guy are rather weak.

Abd's approach to dispute resolution is counterproductive

Abd has focused on this dispute to the exclusion of all else on Wikipedia: a quick scan of his last 1,000 contributions (as of 27 April) shows that virtually all are related to this dispute.

Abd has received (and ignored) feedback from the dispute resolution pathway

Most recently, Abd is suggesting that his own behavior is outside the scope of this case since "DR was not followed" and his behavior is therefore "not ripe for examination by ArbCom."

In fact, Abd has received feedback at virtually every venue in which he has pursued this issue, to the effect that his verbose, highly fixated, and highly personalized approach to the dispute was counterproductive. Specifically, in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3, 29 editors endorsed a view that Abd was obsessively beating a dead horse. Fourteen editors endorsed a view suggesting that his excess verbosity was counterproductive; the cumulative effect of such prolixity and such laserlike, unrelenting focus on this dispute is exhausting for all other involved parties.

Presumably, this feedback "doesn't count" because Abd's name is not at the top of the RfC? Similarly, where Guy has sought feedback and that feedback has been overwhelmingly supportive, Abd continues to assert these instances in his evidence against Guy. This sort of selective hearing is a major force in the escalation of this dispute beyond any reasonable bounds.

Trying to build a mountain from molehills

This process is best viewed not as an attempt to address issues on cold fusion, but an attempt to have Guy disciplined (I believe Abd has said as much, essentially). The problem is that Guy has been basically behaving himself recently, which forces Abd to reach really hard for reasons to justify his ongoing crusade.

In what should have been a word to the wise, an Arbitrator commented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3: "Can anyone show any recent pattern of admin bit abuse, say within the last month or so? This RFC seems to focus on cold fusion issues from 2-3 months ago." Abd admits, in the first sentence of his response, that there is no recent abuse. He then goes on for 80 kb; highlights include: "I don't recall seeing any examples after the matter over which JzG filed a premature RfAr, cited in the RfC. However, since then, JzG has claimed community approval for his actions, which is only true, to some degree, in a negative sense." If there is any substance to the accusations against JzG - issues that have not been resolved by his recusal from cold fusion - they have yet to be demonstrated despite all the sound and fury.

On the topic of patterns...

I am not familiar with Abd; this is my first encounter. I understand that his involvement in past disputes has occasionally led to similar issues - escalation, drama, etc. It's probably not worth rehashing, for instance, the events surrounding Abd's earlier indefinite block, other than to provide a few relevant links:

This is ancient history, as with some of the charges against Guy; but I bring it up because the pattern of unconstructive dispute resolution and active escalation of seemingly straightforward issues is very much active, and exemplified by this ArbCom case.

Summary

I'm sure Abd is a good person and is acting in what he considers the best interests of the encyclopedia. But this is just silly. It would have been ideal for the community to step in and rein this in before it reached this point. Unfortunately, any process which holds the prospect of humiliation for JzG attracts a stable of familiar names like clockwork, making a straightforward resolution of even the most baseless wikilawyering impossible.

This case is not baseless; there is a case to be made that Guy misused the blacklist, and perhaps some clarification to be made about appropriate use of the blacklist. But the important outcomes have already occurred: the sites Correction: one site have been removed from the blacklist, and Guy has recused himself from cold fusion, both decisions with which I agree. To anyone concerned with pragmatism or low-drama, low-disruption resolution of disputes, this one is over. The continuance of this process is driven by a need to see some action taken against Guy. The problem is that there is no evidentiary basis for such an action, and no recent or ongoing abuse of the tools. The most useful outcome of this case would be a more rational way of identifying and dealing with vexatious litigation. MastCell Talk 19:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

Evidence presented by Coppertwig[edit]

Use of tools by JzG

[I]t is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. (Hewart)

The ultimate purpose of Wikipedia is not to produce justice, but to produce an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, an action by an involved admin carries a greater risk of being seen by those impacted as being biassed, arbitrary and unfair. This can generate resentment and degrade Wikipedia's reputation. It's not clear to everyone that the same actions would have been carried out by an uninvolved admin; this leads to problems of appearances at least; and as the reversal of some actions described below suggests, may involve some actions not supported by consensus.

JzG's deletion of a comment [15] from his own RfC is a clear COI edit, and JzG's blocking [16] of the account from which the edit was made is a clear case of use of tools while involved. While there may be a good reason for the actions, I'm not aware of what that reason is. The edit summary and block log summary seem cryptic. I haven't found any record of a user named "Nuxx bar". If the user followed JzG from an off-wiki forum, that makes JzG more clearly involved with the user, not less.

The carrying out of this RfC-related IP blocking seems to show either defiance against the message of the RfC which was ongoing at that time, or a lack of understanding of the principle of admin recusal: either of which would be problematic.

JzG has mentioned being under stress, and being a deletionist. [17] Because of the mention of stress, I've been hesitant to discuss one of the admin actions with JzG: redirecting [18] and immediately indef-protecting [19] a cold-fusion-related article. This action is essentially equivalent to deleting and salting the article, without any of the usual deletion procedures such as AfD. By endorsing the RfC,[20] I've asked JzG to reverse this action (along with a number of other actions listed) or to consent to its reversal by any administrator. It has not been reversed, and as far as I know JzG has not stated that consent. (If I were an administrator I wouldn't interpret JzG's "maybe ... not the best person" [21] as a clear statement of permission to reverse the action.) The number of cold-fusion-related articles Wikipedia is to have is a content decision to be made by community consensus through processes such as AfD. The summary deleting and salting (in effect) of one article may have tended to put a chill on creation of any articles in the topic area: why should one go to the trouble of writing an article if its content seems likely to be deleted without AfD by an admitted deletionist admin? It's difficult to measure the extent of the effect such an action can have.

Some of the actions by JzG while involved have been reversed. The deletion of a talk page was reversed. [22] The blacklisting of newenergytimes [23] has been reversed.[24] The blacklisting of lenr-canr.org [25] has, in a sense, been reversed by the whitelisting of a link for one of the cold fusion articles.[26] Most of the actions have not been examined in community discussions: for example, I don't see pages like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cold fusion/wip or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ObsidianOrder/Cold fusion or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cold fusion/tmp or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CMNS related to the deletions. [27] [28] [29] [30]

In the RfC, 13 users endorsed my view which stated "JzG has clearly used tools while significantly involved, and I ask that he stop doing that." In addition, 29 users endorsed Spartaz' view, which stated among other things "... while I agree generally with Fritpoll's advice to Guy on how to avoid future complaints of thus type, ...", in effect gently encouraging JzG in such situations to "Palm it off onto another admin" for reasons of appearance, as Fritzpoll had suggested: in effect suggesting that JzG refrain from use of tools while involved, which is the primary message of the main RfC statement.

Response to MONGO

Wikipedians are not supposed to separate "fact from fiction", but to report what the reliable sources say, leaving it up to the reader to form their own opinions, particularly in controversial areas where there is a variety of opinion. "In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual." (Fringe science arbitration decision)

Dispute resolution by Abd

Abd's goal throughout has clearly been to support the principle of admin recusal, not to add to JzG's stress nor to remove JzG's admin bit. In the last 4 sentences here [31] Abd makes it clear that his reason for not starting an arbitration request sooner was to allow time for JzG to acknowledge his errors, which Abd believed would result in him keeping his admin bit, the desired win-win solution. Similarly, before that, Abd hesitated before starting an RfC, for reasons he explains here [32] i.e. hoping the matter could be resolved in a simpler way.

Talk page comments by Abd

Abd has ADHD, of a type which makes it extremely difficult for Abd to shorten his comments. [33]. I've offered that people can ask me to shorten any of his comments and I'll probably be happy to provide summaries of them. [34] I've also sometimes done this on my own initiative, for example here [35] where I summarized two of Abd's comments while putting his original comments inside collapse boxes, which Abd has given me permission to do. [36]

Response to MastCell

Abd has been making many edits related to developing the cold fusion articles, which is useful in itself regardless of any connection to dispute resolution processes.

Evidence presented by Mathsci[edit]

Abd seems determined to have his pound of flesh

I agree with everything that MastCell has written. Abd's single purpose now seems to be to have JzG punished or desysopped even though he has recused himself from editing articles related to cold fusion for some time now. Even after the recent RfC for JzG, where Guy received overwhelming support and Abd was severely criticized for his approach to dispute resolution, Abd does not seem to have taken this self-enforced recusal into account. Throughout the RfC, Abd made clear his intention to have JzG's behaviour examined by ArbCom. It is therefore appropriate now that Abd's motives and editing behaviour be examined in great detail by ArbCom, now that - against the better judgement of respected arbitrators like NYB - they have accepted this case. Perhaps even at this stage, a motion to abandon the stale case might be appropriate.

Abd cannot have his cake and eat it

If Abd is claiming that he has difficulty communicating, because of ADHD or other reasons, he cannot then criticize other editors when they find his "stream of consciousness" postings hard to understand.

JzG is no longer editing cold fusion articles

For this reason, I do not understand why his act of blacklisting the fringe science websites lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes is still being made an issue after all these months. I appreciate that he was possibly not the right administrator to perform this action (he has admitted as much himself [37]), but does it really require an ArbCom case to pronounce on this? Abd has failed to establish any systematic problem with JzG's acts as an administrator, despite suggesting otherwise. This seems to be extremely unhelpful. I appreciate Durova's wish to clarify certain aspects of the blacklisting. Apparently JzG has not replied to her questions about this to her satisfaction, which could be put down to a difference in personalities. Again, is it sufficient reason for an ArbCom case?

Abd appears to have his own POV on cold fusion

Since this ArbCom case began, Abd has repeatedly tried to add his own lengthy summary of a recent World Scientific book by cold fusion proponent Ed Storms to the namespace article. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] On the talk page, he has used the unhelpful phrase "anti-fringe editors" to describe his perceived opponents. [43] He has stated more than once that cold fusion is no longer a "fringe science" but an "emerging science". [44][45] He appears to have had off-wiki contact with Steven B. Krivits, editor of New Energy Times and maintainer of the lenr-canr.org website, as well as the indefinitely blocked user JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [46][47] He has attempted to restore material on the article talk page added by an IP sock of Rothwell. [48] Abd's editing patterns seems to have regressed recently to that of cold fusion POV-pusher and edit warrior: his tendentious editing behaviour would in normal circumstances warrant a lengthy community topic ban. He has publicly declared [49] that he no longer wished to edit the article cold fusion, preferring to develop his own fork of the article in his user space; however he has since edited the article (see diffs above) in what seems to be an attempt at disruption and drama-mongering.

Evidence presented by MONGO[edit]

JzG is trying to protect the project from fringe theories

No diffs for you folks, but I just wanted to mention that greater latitude should apply to admins who are pushing the edge slightly in order to ensure this encyclopedic project isn't overwhelmed by fringe theory advocates, single purpose accounts and those who misunderstand the undue weight clause in our NPOV policy. Though in a perfect Wikipedia we would expect that admin actions would only come from those that are completely unaligned and uninvolved, oftentimes that is impractical since uninvolved admins may not understand the specific idiosyncrasies and/or have enough interest/knowledge in the subject matter to be able to differentiate between facts and fiction without taking a crash course in the disputed material. I think the project has come a long way in establishing standards and expectations from those peddling fringe information and much of that progresss has been due to JzG's hardline stance in opposition to emphasizing fiction over facts. In review of JzG's admin actions, I concur with much of what Mastcell has stated above, and add that we can always permit latitude for admin actions that may not always meet the "perfect model" code of action if that admin is mainly trying to protect the project from fringe theory advocates.--MONGO 13:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Cla68[edit]

I don't offer any new evidence than what has already been presented. Instead, I respectfully present the Committee an historical summary that hopefully can help determine if any action needs to be taken.

I suggest that the committee ask themselves these questions to determine whether an actionable finding regarding JzG should be made:

I propose that if the answer to any of these questions is "Yes", that a finding and corrective action by the Committee may be appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Enric Naval[edit]

Some of the "bad" administrative actions by JzG are actually "good"

In point #6 of Cla68's evidence, it says that "[JzG] blocks an IP of an editor with whom he is involved in an off-wiki dispute". That would be 81.156.251.147 (talk · contribs), who very clearly earned his block by trying to troll JzG's talk page by calling a motorist-hater in relation to some silly off-wiki dispute about motorists which is not related to the edition of any wikipedia article as far as I can tell. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Alecmconroy cites this same good block as proof of incivility[63].

calling people "dick"

(Alecmconroy has amended his evidence --Enric Naval (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Also in Alecmconroy's evidence, the "don't be a dick" section, the person was actually being a dick. It seems that calling people "dicks" is normal in some countries, but it's offensive at other countries, so JzG should stop using it even if it's a good description of the editor's actions.

Let me explain: the user alleguedly insulted by JzG was reverting an edit that very clearly said to go to the talk page [64] and the user reverted when the talk page already had a RfC with a OTRS ticket. This user already had by that time a long history of blocks for edit warring[65]. This editor later reverted again [66] and again[67]. By the time he made his first revert the RfC had been in the talk page for 18 minutes [68] and it had contained a OTRS ticket for 13 minutes[69]. So, this person was effectively behaving like a dick and he probably didn't get blocked only because the article was protected and he couldn't revert any more. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Alecmconroy[edit]

JzG has a long history of name-calling, personal attacks, and incivility. Based on a quick glance, it appears JzG's personal attacks have become less frequent. Nonetheless, he still continues to engage in personal attacks:

"Autistic spectrum" slur

"Troll"

Disrespect during Dispute Resolution

"Don't be a Dick"

"ADHD" slur

Conclusion

JzG does a lot of good work for Wikipedia, but he manages to step on a lot of toes in the process. Sometimes, he loses his temper and actually stomps on the toes. It would be very nice if we could find a way to help him stop now, rather than waiting until he does something so bad that we're left with no choice but to do a permanent desysop.

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.


More