Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 20 February 2009

User:Abd/JzG

The context was apparently Abd being asked to provide evidence for a discussion at WP:RFAR. That discussion was brief, and my action in topic-banning Jed Rothwell was resoundingly endorsed (to the point that the arbitrators were in some doubt as to why I had even bothered bringing such an obvious action to their notice). The introductory sentence actually reads as if it was me on trial. False. 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.

Abd seems to want to keep this laundry list of grudges, every one of which has been raised multiple times and in multiple venues, and has failed to gain any traction in any of these venues. Complaints have been closed in several venues, in one case citing WP:DEADHORSE. Eventually, when a user repeats the same assertions time after time and they are consistently rejected, it becomes time for them to stop making such assertions. Right now, Abd is doing the opposite. He's actively citing this userspace essay - from which he removed my comments, in violation of WP:OWN - and asserting once again as if they were fact, all the same rejected arguments. Endless repetition of repeatedly rejected complaints is not a valid use of Misplaced Pages user space. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:STICK. Simon 22:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The precedent for keeping such evidence pages is clear (see ). --GoRight (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - The user's stated rationale for the page no longer applies. But the main reason for deletion is that it has been used for harassment, and linked into article talk pages by Abd during content disputes, as recently as two days ago. This crosses the line quite a bit into an attack page (unlike GoRight's page above) which has no place on Misplaced Pages. I'm sympathetic to evidence pages for process but this demonstrates clear intention of its use as an attack page. Phil153 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Shining light on the actions of powerful admins is a useful and often necessary thing to do. The page is devoted entirely to recounting and discussing the editor's behavior, not to making personal attacks on him as a person. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - two weeks is my guideline, it's older than that. Use it or lose it. Either there is wrongdoing to bring forward or there's simmering resentment and grudges to nurse. We are not a grudge-host. On the other hand, modern computers have gigabytes of personal storage space and I'm always happy to show people how to use Notepad. Franamax (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. There doesn't seem to be any current or immediately pending application for this page in any formal dispute resolution, nor has evidence been presented that the page page is essential (or even consequential) to a past or ongoing Arbitration or RfC. Franamax's assessment is on-target. While I wouldn't impose a hard two-week limit on all such pages, the balance is tipped by the fact that this page is – as Phil153 notes – being (mis)used as a bludgeon in content disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This must be with reference to AN/I report which was not a content dispute, it was a notice re edit warring, without any request for content review or support. Assume JzG is right about the content. ... May JzG use edit warring, i.e., repeated assertion of content, knowing his edits are opposed, to maintain his preferred version? But many did insist on looking at it as a content dispute. Happens on AN/I, see User:Abd/MKR incident --Abd (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This was indeed an evidence page compiled for an RfAr request, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion#Cold_fusion_topic_bans_.28Clarification.29 filed by JzG. Deleting the file would make comments in the RfAr and other places unintelligible, so I will notify the appropriate Arbitration talk page. The first part of the page is neutral, the actions described, however, lead to some obvious conclusions, which I stated explicitly as my conclusions. If anything on that page is incorrect, it should be corrected (it's my user page and I'm responsible for the content, but I certainly would not object to corrections.) If there are relevant facts that should be stated to make the context of JzG's actions clear, they should be included, but I won't tolerate a massive barrage of irrelevancies. JzG was involved in articles related to Cold fusion, as shown. He used his administrative tools with regard to the articles and with regard to editors of the article and article Talk. This included protecting an article in his preferred version, direct blacklisting without prior discussion, and without logging, and, yes, it included blocking an editor, then blocking other IP, probably not the editor, for "block evasion," then topic banning the editor. I'm a bit surprised at this MfD coming from JzG. It will escalate the affair, rapidly. Perhaps it's time.

It should be known who referred to it in the RfAr, directly and indirectly. "indirect reference" includes reference to the claims of action while involved, made in my Comment prior to the creation of the subject page as evidence to back up the Comment. --Abd (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Statement by Abd 5th bullet point.
• Statement by GoRight refers to use of admin tools while involved, clearly in response to my comment above.
• Statement by DGG JzG is not an uninvolved editor on this subject and has no business making blocks or bans in this area. This is blatant abused of admin privileges, slightly ameliorated by his voluntarily bringing it here. I have no view on the underlying issue of what to do about Rothwell, but I think a topic ban against JzG is called for--and least an injunction of any further actions in this area that do are appear to make use of the admin bit.
• Statement by Phil153 JzG is an involved administrator with something of a POV on cold fusion. (This comment would have been very unlikely if the issue of involvement hadn't been raised, with evidence.) See comment below by Phil153 --Abd (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Statement by Durova Echoing the concerns of ABD and DGG above....
• While I agree with ABD and DGG above that JzG seems to be an 'involved' user within this subject matter, .

And among the comments by arbitrators:

• Risker: The second is whether or not JzG should be the admin to effectuate the blocks. I will point out that with 900+ active admins, this question could be made moot by any one of them.
• Carcharoth Agree also with GoRight's summary, as it matches my views as well.

JzG asserts a pile of irrelevancies in his nomination, it would lead to massive tl;dr if I addressed them. --Abd (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Yikes. Most of the above bullets neither required or used your evidence page - asserting that they referred to it is simply false. Note that I added my comment and evidence about JzG's involvement and POV before you created your /Jzg subpage or provided evidence of involvement, so your "very unlikely" comment doesn't make sense. And your suggestion that I referred to it in any way is flat out false, since it didn't exist! Maybe you forgot that you added the page later as an edit to your section after most had commented.

• My delete vote here is because I strongly object to the way in which the page is continuing to be used for harassment and canvassing against what is mostly a hard working volunteer. That's what tips the balance. If you provide an accurate rationale in the lead, remove some of the more egregious comments, and most importantly, agree not to link it in article talk space or content disputes, then there would be zero reason to remove it and I'd favor keeping it. As it's currently being used, comments such as This raises serious questions about his competency to continue as an administrator are merely opinions that have the effect of attacking another editor, when linked inappropriately and not in an RfC, RfArb or similar. Phil153 (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil153, you are correct about the timing. However, you missed something. I made the claim of action while involved before you commented. I was then asked, off-wiki, for evidence to back this up, which I then provided. It's possible some others may have commented before the evidence page was put up. So you didn't refer to the evidence page, that's quite true. You referred to my claim of involvement, which was based at that point on my personal knowledge and judgment, only later backed up with diffs. You confirmed the claim.

Thanks for commenting, Phil153. I'm going to move my comments to the Talk page, they don't need to be on that page any more. I do have serious questions about JzG's current competence, something has badly damaged his balance. I've tried to nudge him gently, it didn't work. I asked him to identify someone he trusted to mediate. No response, just deletion of the request. I was proceeding slowly, one step in WP:DR at a time, but he escalated immediately to ArbComm. Many others have warned him, and it seems to have no effect. He treats that ArbComm case, see above, as some kind of victory, it was definitely not. He asked ArbComm to do something very, very dangerous, and ArbComm, quite correctly and wisely said, No, we will not consider this, it is premature. As was obvious to me and to others. My intervention was not, as he has claimed many times, an attempt to assist Rothwell; if I wanted Rothwell unbanned or unblocked, I'd have acted quite differently. No, my concern is improving Misplaced Pages process, and I only intervened in the ArbComm case because of the seriousness of what he was asking for, and upon request.

Now, about the use of the page in the RfAR. I made a comment and cited the page as evidence. Others did not cite the page directly, but they either referred to my comment or made comments that included or incorporated the opinion that JzG was using admin tools when involved. There was no other source or evidence for that presented, and if not for my comment and its evidence, the other comments wouldn't have existed. If this MfD concludes Delete, which seems unlikely to me, the same evidence will likely appear again, in a user RfC or mediation process, unless JzG amends his behavior. If I'm improperly citing this page somewhere, point it out, specifically, and I'll redact (including delinking), and if I don't, warn me formally. Please don't confuse the evidence page and its appropriateness with later usage of it. To claim that it is being inappropriately used, when no individual usage was challenged in situ, is simply blowing smoke, cart before horse, conclusion before evidence.--Abd (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not going to argue. The only problem I have with this page, since you removed the editorials to talk, is its linking in article talk pages during content disputes (the most recent example). You don't think that's inappropriate, so we're at an impass. Phil153 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the context; it wasn't about a content dispute, it was about edit warring, one editor reverting two, plus two others having supported the specific link, 6 removals for JzG vs. 3 for Enric Naval, 2 for me, plus the original removal (as it stood by the end of the AN/I report), and prior history of an editor allegedly edit warring with the article is relevant. The content is irrelevant: can edit warring be used to maintain preferred content? Policy says "No," (with exceptions that don't apply here). User:Abd/JzG should probably be renamed to User:Abd/Jzg and Cold fusion. It's very specific. (Martin Fleischmann is most notable for his Cold fusion announcement.) If the usage there, or anywhere, is challenged, it can be reviewed by other editors and deleted with consensus, though asserting removal with an edit is also okay (first time!). Thanks for the example, Phil. --Abd (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Actually it would appear to be very much in order to retain, and deletion would appear to violate WP rules about writing such pages -- users have a right to make such pages, and if we were remove all the "wrong" ones, we would just as surely be removing users' "rights." Collect (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly used as an attack page. Notepad, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, Ctrl-S. There you go! yandman 18:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note. Notice of this MfD placed on RfAr Talk. --Abd (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Courtesy blank (but don't delete) - it seems to be an evidence page for a recent arbcom case. Courtesy blanking should be sufficient to answer all concerns. I find it amusing the complete disconnect between !votes on this page and Raul's page mentioned above. --B (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep on condition that Abd uses this as the basis for an RFC within 60-90 days. While I support that evidence pages (absent direct personal attacks) are fine for userspace, I don't believe in keep them around forever building up steam against someone. Guy doesn't need some Sword of Damocles hanging over his head. --InkSplotch (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep on condition, same as InkSplotch above. If there is really a problem then bring it to RfC already. A lot of people don't see a problem with the evidence provided by Abd on that page, and Abd keeps linking to this page as if it was proof of something, so it's being used as an attack page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Enric, did you look at the comments I listed in the RfAr? There are a number of editors indicating concern with respect to JzG using admin tools in relation to the article, and no evidence of this was presented except for User:Abd/JzG. Note that the use of tools specifically related to the subject of the RfAr. No editors commented contrary to the implications of the page. Is the page proof of something? I'd leave that to the reader. If there are errors there, or important evidence is missing, by all means, please fix it. As to RfC, continued problem behavior and intransigence is likely to lead to that. If JzG is right, he'll be confirmed, and if not, not, and I'll have egg all over my face and might be taking a little wikibreak. But I was trying to avoid an RfC; given this MfD, that's probably impossible now. So the MfD will be moot, essentially. If deleted, the content comes back in the RfC, if the deletion is confirmed at WP:DRV. Note that the dispute isn't clearly defined yet, and it certainly hasn't been examined by the community in any coherent way. I'm still hoping that a friend of JzG will realize that he could be headed for a fall if they don't give him some good advice. And my Talk page is open. --Abd (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just make the RFC already --Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)