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

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

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

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

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

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

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

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Jehochman

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

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

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

Interesting conversation here for those of you who are diff connoisseurs. Subsequent actions by JzG are understandable in the context that his prior administrative actions in the cold fusion venue were blessed (perhaps incorrectly) by Thatcher and a few arbitrators. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since a few people seem to misunderstand: whether or not JzG's actions were wrong, he has at no point received consensus feedback that he was wrong. A few editors, notably Abd and Durova have stood up and given him criticism. That's fine, but they have not yet achieved a consensus for that position. They seem to be seeking sanctions against JzG. That should be off the table because JzG has not received feedback, to my knowledge, that his action was wrong, nor has he been given a chance to correct himself. Likewise, I think that talk of sanctioning Abd is unhelpful. Editors should not be discouraged from raising complaints, though I think Abd's prosecution has been excessive and unhelpful to a degree. If he is told that, and stops, then nothing further is needed. At this point, there is no consensus on either issue. That's why we are here. Jehochman Talk 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ronnotel, we are not in the business of humiliating people. Even banned users are supposed to be treated politely. We should allow our volunteers to save face whenever possible. Jehochman Talk 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by Abd

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 for diffs and detailed listings.

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

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

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

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

In addition, JzG removed a comment in the RfC itself from an IP editor,[3] and the edit summary and his block of the IP referenced an off-wiki dispute, thus showing that even after the RfC was filed, he did not show due caution in avoiding use of tools while involved.

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

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

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

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

Response to Newyorkbrad

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

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

Response re meta discussions

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

Response re JzG and Jehochman statements

Statement by JzG

OK, I have thought long and hard about this. This is what I think is going on:

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

Matters of fact:

Clerk notes

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

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

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles[edit]

Administrators

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

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

Questioning of administrative actions

2) Administrators are accountable to their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions is acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.

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

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

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

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

Administrators not to act unless uninvolved

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

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

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

Purpose of the spam blacklist

5) The Wikimedia spam blacklist provides a technical method for combating link spam. The blacklist is "intended as a last resort for spam which spreads across multiple projects, and which is pursued by multiple individuals or IP addresses" (m:spam blacklist/About, see also Wikipedia:Spam blacklist). To a lesser extent it is also used to combat malware links. Each Wikimedia project also has its own local blacklist, for use against link spam affecting only that project.

As blacklisting is a method of last resort, methods including blocking, page protection, or the use of bots such as XLinkBot are to be used in preference to blacklisting.

Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions.

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

Correct use of dispute resolution

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

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

Communication

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

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

Disengaging

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

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

Findings of fact[edit]

Nature of the dispute

1) The main issues in this dispute include:

  1. the presence of "lenr-canr.org" and "newenergytimes.com" on the spam blacklist,
  2. allegations that JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) took certain administrative actions while not uninvolved, and
  3. the appropriateness of Abd (talk · contribs)'s pursuit of dispute resolution.
Passed 11 to 0, 16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

JzG's use of the spam blacklist

3) On 18 December 2008, JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) added "lenr-canr.org" ([4]) and "newenergytimes.com" ([5]), websites related to cold fusion, to the English Wikipedia spam blacklist. In both cases he used the edit summary "+1". In neither case did he comply with the requirement to log the additions at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log.

JzG started a discussion on the English Wikipedia spam blacklist talk page with respect to "lenr-canr.org", saying "Adding now, and listing here for transparency", and he added the site to the blacklist less than a minute later. JzG did not attempt any other discussion with respect to the two additions.

On 8 January 2009, JzG initiated a discussion with respect to "lenr-canr.org" at the Meta spam blacklist talk page, as a result of which the site was added to the Meta spam blacklist on 10 January 2009.

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

JzG not an uninvolved administrator with respect to cold fusion articles

4) From time to time, since July 2006, JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made a number of substantive content edits to the cold fusion article (list of all contributions), and has participated in a substantive way in a number of discussions on the article's talk page (list of all contributions).

Among these substantive content edits are a number of edits, undertaken over the course of more than a year, removing links to "lenr-canr.org" ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) or "newenergytimes.com" ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]).

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

Prior admonition

5) In September 2008, in the C68-FM-SV case, JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), along with all other administrators involved in the case, was generically admonished and instructed to "avoid... use of administrator privileges in disputes as to which the administrator is, or may reasonably be perceived as being, involved in the underlying dispute". However, that admonition was not directed specifically at JzG (see relevant finding of fact).

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

Abd's pursuit of dispute resolution

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

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

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

JzG admonished

1) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is specifically admonished not to use his administrative tools in any situation unless he is uninvolved, nor to use them to further his position in a dispute.

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

Abd advised

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

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

Abd urged

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

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

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

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


Category