Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:17, 21 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)

I'd consider consenting to courtesy blanking, but I'd want to see a discussion of that, specifically. Not here. --Abd (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Insisting on such a discussion makes it more difficult to believe that your intentions are in good faith. This isn't a bureaucracy. --B (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh! The "discussion" could be on my Talk page or on the Talk page of User:Abd/JzG. My hesitation is that the purpose of keeping the page is for reference from places where it's been used. (and if it has been used inappropriately, those usages should be addressed directly). Blanking the page presents a problem, then for the reader following the link. Further, I don't really see the reason for blanking. It's just a pile of diffs with only a little comment, and if it is misleading in some way, that should be addressed specifically. The page is no-indexed courtesy of B, I don't have a problem with that. --Abd (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, you could just go ahead and unilaterally blank it. Anyone actually viewing that page already knows where the history tab is. Cla68 did much the same thing not long ago based on one single suggestion. Asking for more discussion on terms that you alone dictate is pushing it a little bit. Why not show some good faith and smooth manners? It's easy enough to change page links to &oldid links and no AC clerk in the world will prevent you doing that. How 'bout just being a nice guy? Franamax (talk) 06:13, 21 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)

My guess is that this is likely to happen, but MfD's can't actually set conditions, though I suppose we could try. The MfD closes with Keep or Delete, for now, and 60-90 days is long enough that there would be no problem with renomination if it appears the file is no longer needed. The precedent, deleting a file actually used in an RfAr discussion, is pretty bad, though. All that file shows is edits to Cold Fusion, and use of admin tools in matters related to the article. Maybe he should get a barnstar. But it seems that some want to claim that what is only a set of excerpts from Special:Contributions/JzG and his log is defamatory. I'd suggest that they consider the implications of that claim. If there is some comment on that page which is specifically an attack and not merely a fair presentation of evidence, it should be pointed out (or the file directly edited, I'll accept that if warranted, but it's my report and I'm responsible for it.) --Abd (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The precedent, deleting a file actually used in an RfAr discussion, is pretty bad, though.

This needs addressing. RfArs allow a level of commentary on other users' motives and behaviors that is discouraged elsewhere, but tolerated in RfArs out of need. In other words, you can get away with an attack page used as evidence in an RfAr when the same page would otherwise be inappropriate, for example, linked from article talk. The "bad precedent" here, in my opinion, is suggesting that such pages are permanently immune from deletion once they been included in an RfAr, even if the RfAr is removed and declined, or tangential to the issues brought, as this one was.

In addition, your argument doesn't apply to courtesy blanking, which you've declined to do. Other options include pasting the text into you user talk page, or sandbox, or other subpage with a small explanatory note, reverting, and substituting the permanent link into the archived RfAr. In other words, there is zero reason you need an active page such as this, and it's talk page with commentary, just because you included it in an RfAr. In fact, linking to a permanent link using one of the methods is above a more accurate way of preserving an RfAr than a direct link to the latest version of page which is still being edited by you. So the whole RfAr evidence page argument is a big red herring in this MfD. Phil153 (talk) 08:20, 21 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)

• Delete. Make an offline copy and file an RFC if necessary. Otherwise, shitlists are not permitted. Abd really needs to drop the stick and come down off the reichstag, if I may mix my essays. Skinwalker (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If he had posted it to the evidence page of the RFAR rather than to his user space, it would have been retained there and rather non-controversially so. I'm failing to see the difference. --B (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Editors post all sorts of questionable invective on RFAR pages - it's failure on the part of the clerks that it isn't policed better. If Abd wants to pursue dispute resolution, he's welcome to, otherwise this content is violating WP:USER. His statement above that "dispute isn't clearly defined" and that it hasn't been "examined by the community" are untrue and obfuscatory given the multiple AN/I threads he's raised on the topic. File an RFC, or get rid of it. Skinwalker (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment at the RfAr did not consider my comment or the report "questionable invective," on the contrary, see above. Multiple AN/I threads? Only two threads have been initiated by me in a very long time, this page was cited in both, but for different reasons. The first thread was Repetitive_removal_of_discussion_by_Hu12_on_MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, and the page was mentioned in response to an argument by JzG in that thread that brought up the issues. In the second, JzG_edit_warring_on_Martin_Fleischmann, in the second thread, the evidence page showed background to JzG edit warring in that article. (There is a connection between his edit warring and his prior use of tools. The site he blacklisted was referenced in the link he was removing repeatedly -- it had been whitelisted later.) (This thread was closed as if it had been an attempt to use AN/I in a content dispute, as if it had been a claim of use of admin tools while involved, and as if 3RR violation had been claimed. Those were all errors. The thread was about edit warring.) Look, it's fairly simple. If the page is deleted, I will probably file an RfC, assuming I find someone else to certify it, and the evidence would come back. If it's not deleted, I might never get to it. It's a risk, eh? --Abd (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The difference is that (based on my casual observation of activity) Abd seems to have a penchant to address others with "well, if you don't do as I ask, I'll just write it in my little black book" and then mention it to others later with "gee, I sure hope they step back from the brink or I might have to act <link to little-black-book>". Those are scare-quotes indicating my own paraphrases, I have no /Abd sub-page of my own. And I'm quite certain that such comments worry Guy not at all - however it's a disturbing tendency. Other editors may find such actions rather intimidating. Cases should be either brought or built off-line. I see no positive benefit to the encyclopedia by keeping such pages indefinitely. Franamax (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It has been used as an attack page here, here, and here. So it's an attack page. Granted, it was also used by Abd to attempt to back up a statement he made within a request for clarification that the arbcom refused to hear. (The suggested maximum length for a statement was 500 words and Abd had already used ~1220 words.) But that's over. Cardamon (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Under InkSplotch's conditions. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep on condition per InkSplotch if Abd has stated clearly that it is intended to be used in an RfC. Compilation of evidence in preparation for RfArs is OK; the evidence can then be presented on the RfAr evidence page. A link from an RfAr does not seem to me to be a sufficient reason to keep a page like this. If it's really essential to the Arb case, perhaps a clerk could move it to the Arb subspace. Courtesy blanking would be a compromise but deletion seems more proper under point 10 here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Coppertwig. The page was prepared in this context: Having discovered certain problems with JzG's actions, I was pursuing WP:DR, one baby step at a time. JzG had rebuffed attempts at direct negotiation, and I had asked him to suggest an informal mediator; he did not respond. The best next step would be for me to ask another editor to discuss this with JzG, first, and failing that, to request formal mediation, or to file an RfC. The page would not have been compiled at this point, probably, unless requested. However, JzG escalated, on one closely related issue, to ArbComm. He was asking for something very dangerous, and he distorted, there, the history. I commented, asserting the problems that can be seen in User:Abd/JzG, but did not prepare an evidence page. I was then asked by a respected editor to compile the page showing what I'd claimed in my Comment in the RfAr, so I did so, and posted the link to the evidence page. I could have placed it all on Talk for the arbitration case, but such reports, prepared by an editor for use in an RfAr, are normally prepared and presented from user space. It's my report, I'm responsible for it, and it, like all comments before ArbComm, shouldn't be derailed by discussion which can dilute it and divert attention from what is in it. (It is really just an extension of the Comment.) ArbComm denied the request of JzG; above, JzG views that through rose-colored glasses. It's quite possible that ArbComm would have denied the request without my comment and evidence, but, as we have seen above and elsewhere, JzG claims validation by ArbComm, which is preposterous given record. Without the evidence on my user page, though, the comments with respect to his involvement with the article and the editors blocked lack depth and become mere assertions and his claim would be more plausible.

I have not posted links to the page to harass JzG, but have linked to it when relevant, JzG continues to act outside of norms with respect to the Cold fusion articles. Part of a hoped-for side effect of this could be that someone who supports JzG would see it and realize that there was a problem and risk here, and quietly intervene. What happened with Physchim62 and Tango was that their supporters backed them when they were wrong, so they held on and justified improper actions far too long, thus creating a fear that they would repeat the actions. All of us need friends who will warn us and criticize our actions, or we can be headed for a hard fall. Uncritical support can be more dangerous than open opposition. As the matter stands, the actual material in User:Abd/JzG will almost certainly remain in some form, whether as a presentation to a possible intervenor on that editor's Talk, in a mediation case, or in an RfC, and it is better that it simply be kept and linked to than recreated elsewhere; the ArbComm filing by JzG and the response there alone justify keeping it. But we could ask ArbComm! If there is anything in error on that page, please remove it or, better, fix it!--Abd (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep on condition, per Inksplotch. As Abd also maintains (or at least maintained, I don't know if it still exists) one of his laundry lists of grudges against me as well, for daring to block him during one of his previous sub-Moulton "we must defend the toiling masses against the corrupt Misplaced Pages system" exercises, I don't see the existence of these kind of things as a huge problem as long as he keeps his opinions to himself – but if he's now linking to it from other pages in one of his apparently interminable attempts to use Misplaced Pages as a cross between a blog and a revenge platform (FWIW, number of edits by Abd in 2009 = 824; number of mainspace edits by Abd in 2009 = 36) that's a different matter. I personally have never had a problem with Guy but I recognise some people feel they have; however, if they do, then either raise the matter somewhere appropriate (WQA, RFAR, ANI, RFC or whichever other place the editor feels appropriate) or keep it to yourself; the Misplaced Pages userspace isn't the appropriate place to build an unwieldy hybrid between Misplaced Pages Review and an RFC. – iridescent 17:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have such a list "against" you, Iridescent. The self/user RfC I started didn't turn to your actions, and I have no opinion at all that you acted outside of the boundaries of administrative discretion, even though I think you blocked me in error. (Admins are allowed make mistakes and there is only a problem if, after the matter becomes clear, an admin insists that a bad action was correct, see the RfAr pages for Physchim62 and Tango). Note that these user space pages have proven effective in resolving some disputes; when there is an attempt to lay out evidence objectively, prior to any possibly disruptive process, users sometimes revise their opinions and seek consensus. If there is some other page where I have a "laundry list" with respect to your action, please let me know, or if there is something incorrect in one of the User:Abd/RfC pages, please point it out. (To my knowledge, none of these review or evidence pages has been deleted.) By the way, what I was trying to do when blocked was ultimately confirmed by community consensus. Jehochman, whose warning was the primary preceding action for the block, later said it was a mistake, and the admin whom I supposedly attacked is the one who later granted me rollback, saying that it was all a misunderstanding. Sometimes things are not as they appear. Did you notice, Iridescent, that the evidence in User:Abd/JzG was prepared for and presented in an RfAr? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)