Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:26, 7 April 2009

This page was nominated for deletion on 05 April 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

incomplete timeline of blacklisting of lenr-canr.org

• 18 December 2008, JzG removes links to lenr-canr from two articles, opens a discussion in the talk page of the local blacklistalso adds newenergytimes.com later and adds lenr-canr to the local blacklist without waiting for replies
• 31 December 2008 Petri Kohn complains at Jehochman's talk page about the removal and having problems with the spam filter to re-add them
• 7 January 2009 Abd challenges the local blacklisting here
• 8 January 2009 JzG goes to meta and proposes addition to the meta blacklist here
• 10 January 2009 Erwin adds lenr-canr to the meta blacklist making reference to the talk page thread (which at that moment has only the original proposal, a recommendaton from Ohnoitsjamie favoring inclusion, a reply from JzG, and the rationale of Erwin for accepting the proposal)
• 10 January 2009 The local blacklist discussion gets closed becasue of the blacklisting at meta, and everyone gets sents to the whitelist talk page

lenr-canr.org is still blacklisted at meta, and requests to remove have been replied by the meta admins saying it won't be removed and that they must ask for whitelisting of specific links. See the archived thread holding all the discussions, the very last comment is a summary by Mike, explaining why it won't be removed and archiving the request for good. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Enric. Please consider that the blacklisting was mentioned as an example of use of tools while involved. Only the first of these actions listed above involved admin tools (directly adding the links to the blacklist). There is no "timeline" as such, and, while the list in the RfC may be incomplete, the items above wouldn't belong in it. The article edits were mentioned because they were simultaneous and the blacklisting was then similar to editing an article and then protecting it (and it literally functioned that way, his edits could not be reverted). The topic here is administrative recusal, not whether or not the blacklisting was ultimately proper or sustained. It has not, however, actually been challenged through dispute resolution process, because of political necessity under the status quo, i.e., the use of the blacklist to control content is accepted by many or most administrators active with the blacklist, and I'd prefer to address systemic solutions that consider the legitimate needs of the blacklist volunteers and that don't tie their hands, but remove from them the temptation to become content judges, by involving other editors in the whitelisting and delisting process. I want to make it more efficient, not less. --Abd (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

From User Talk:Ikip

RFC JZG 3

Please remove your section. This is ancient news. There has already been an RFC on Guy's swearing and he was admonished for it in an arbitration hearing and has subsequently smartened up his act. None of this is relevant to the issue of the RFC and will create unnecessary drama. Your diffs are all 2 years old. Please remove the section - it reflects more badly on you then Guy. We strive to be fair and you look like kicking a man for an offence he has already been punished for. We dont do double jeopardy.... Spartaz 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

See below. --Abd (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

See below. Ikip (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here to make a comment complaining of the same thing, but Spartaz has already summed it up very well. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG 3

The RfC was filed to deal with administrative failure to recuse, not incivility or other violations, and comments as you started to make there are out of place and simply confuse the issue. That's true of comments on the other side, but one of my major points is that we should restrain our allies, and that if those who support JzG restrained him, we wouldn't have the problem and his admin bit would be safe, I believe. You have the perfect right to make your comments, but I consider them not useful. There was already an RfC and an Arbcomm finding about prior JzG behavior, and if the old behavior has resumed, that is still irrelevant to the present RfC; the time to bring it up would be if the present issue goes to ArbComm, where other possible misbehavior would become relevant.

Your comments may inflame an already difficult situation, presenting cause for more defense and flames. Please keep the focus of the RfC on admin recusal and do not make inflammatory comments. It is hard enough to keep that focus as it is. Please redact, if you agree, and make your comment about the narrow issue, which might as well assume that JzG was right in terms of his goal being something that the community would support, but that his use of tools, because of his involvement, was a serious violation of policy. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

See: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG 3, Jzg's defenders. That is all I have to say on this issue here. Thank you for your concerns, I respectfully disagree. And I ask that you please keep comments here, where they are relevant to this issue at hand. Ikip (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments moved from the main page

Moved from the Ikip section of this RfC:

((Added after - I have dropped Ikip a note about this - all of these issues were addressed in RFC JZG 2 and the subsequent arbitration case. None of the diffs appear to be recent Spartaz 18:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)))

Please address your concerns with my section in your own, as per established RfC protocol. I appreciate your concerns, but I respectfully disagree. Ikip (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Certification

In response to JzG's comments

There's an old content RfC worth reviewing at Talk:Answers_in_Genesis/Archive_2#RfC; one of the rare occasions when dispute resolution ended in a collective barnstar. Answers in Genesis is an organization that advocates young earth creationism. The rightness or wrongness of the organization's mission was irrelevant; what was at issue was whether original research was being performed by Wikipedians to make the organization appear in a worse light than newspaper reports had presented. Upon examination of the source material I agreed that was occurring, and asked editors to set aside their content opinions and focus on the pure mechanics of site policies and citation methods. It was one of the rare occasions where all parties proved willing to do so. As a result the article improved substantially and I thanked the editors for placing Wikipedian collaboration above personal views on a hot button topic.

For two years the naked short selling dispute split senior volunteers of this website into two different camps, and it split the community because partisans on both sides of the actual dispute persuaded Wikipedians to share their POVs. To this day I don't know which POV was right, and don't care either. The actual disputants were breaking policies on both sides; Wikipedians allowed their partisanship to blind themselves to the policy issues; the site became a battleground and I do care very much about learning from that collective mistake.

POV partisans of various sorts will always show up at this site. We're an open edit project; that goes with the territory. The only credible way to counter that is to rise above it. Demonstrate by example that Misplaced Pages is not a place where policies can be invoked or discarded according to convenience. WP:IAR has its place as a last resort, but if we allow its abuse when legitimate alternatives are readily available then we start down a dangerous path. It's easy to open an administrative noticeboard thread to ask for independent review and action: recusal is the Teflon that stops mud-throwing from sticking. Durova 05:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If that RFC is a Success, I'd hate to see failure. The only reason that article was fixed is that AA and assorted xxxxpuppets (defined as "any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel.") were banned from it. I think the same might fix Cold Fusion. Perhaps we should include the ban to "any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Pcarbonn." Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a different editor on shifting IP addresses that was going after a related article about one of the organization's employees, and various other pages. That is unrelated to the scope of this particular content RfC, though. And interestingly, he commented upon the WP:BATTLE stance of subsequent dispute resolution to say that it validated his approach of not even trying to work within site processes. A year later he was still on shifting IP addresses, still disrupting. She had tried to work collaboratively within DR, and was gone. Durova 17:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Durova states that her "successful" rfc was not related to the rfar I reference. I disagree. I base my statement on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Focus_of_dispute, which reads "This dispute is centered on LIVING PERSON and associated articles such as Answers in Genesis..." (emph mine). If your saying that the article was fixed, I agree. The reason the article was fixed is that the entire anti-science side of the dispute was banned, and the pro-reality side of the dispute could deal with it's problem children instead of having to batten down the hatches against the invading hordes. Oh look, it's the same pattern we've seen Over, and Over and Over again. Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As you may or may not be aware, I followed up a year later because the arbitration had been ineffective. The same IP editor was actually disrupting a range of articles related to the biological sciences which were not covered by the scope of the arbitration decision, although he was not active at the Answers in Genesis page during the RfC in question. The arbitration committee declined my request to amend the case, and due to BLP concerns I was unable to pursue a community ban on that abusive editor. This is nearing the limit of what I am at liberty to discuss onsite, but I assure you both that I did pursue due diligence in followup and that the concerns you raise are a separate matter from the RfC provided as an example. If you would like followup I must request that it be offsite (gchat, Skype or email) due to the BLP issue that would inevitably arise. Durova 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So, in summary, abusive editors got banned, evaded the ban, were RBIed, and the good editors kept working on the articles to make them work? Ok, let's follow that chain of thought here. Why is Abd allowed to edit Cold Fusion pages, exactly? Here - I promise that if the CF advocates are all RBIed, I will personally make sure that JzG never does anything about cold fusion ever again, on pain of nothing. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the limited ban from two articles was inadequate. An abusive editor remained free to disrupt a wide range of articles, and did so. And another editor was banned from a page where she had been constructive. It was a curious case, and I repeat the invitation to discuss it in greater detail offsite. This was the prior instance I was referring to during the Mantanmoreland case, of an instance where I seriously wanted to propose a siteban but was stopped at all turns for reasons that related to BLP. I am not at liberty to debate it in detail onsite, and it is largely irrelevant to the point I was making. Durova 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you think that we need to ban Abd from the entire encyclopedia, I'm not going to disagree. Hipocrite (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Subsection

I'm allowed because I have violated no policies or guidelines, to my knowledge, I have no entrenched POV and no COI, I seek consensus, and know how to find it, though it takes time, I don't edit war, I don't try to get editors I disagree with blocked or banned, I welcome all editors regardless of POV and attempt to integrate them into the consensus process, assuring them (and proving by my actions) that their POV will be heard and considered, I warn editors informally, usually off their Talk pages, because I want to encourage voluntary acceptance of behavioral guidelines instead of through threats, which don't work in the long run (and a formal warning is like a threat, though it might be necessary sometimes), and ... on the matter of Fringe, I've been working to make the ArbComm decision on Fringe science a functional reality with Cold fusion. Because I have no crystal ball, I do not know what the article will look like when I'm done, though from my review of peer-reviewed literature over the last few months, many hours of research and discussion, I think it will be, ultimately, pretty different, and it will be stable, because there will be consensus behind it. Now, Hipocrite, please, why should I be banned? What did I do? Your classification of me as a "CF advocate" is reprehensible. It's true, I've come to the conclusion based on my reading that there is a nuclear phenomenon involved in the Fleischmann-Pons effect. Me, plus every other recent reviewer published in RS who has done more than make assumptions from conclusions in 1989. I doubt that Hipocrite has any knowledge on this subject at all, he's merely parroting a factional line, probably unworthy of even this short comment. So, yes, I have a POV. I don't consider myself an expert, but I'll note that experts have POVs, more often than the ignorant, but worse than ignorance is belief entrenched and not amenable to investigation. The reality of his proposal: get rid of all those who are actually knowledgeable on the topic, and leave the article to the ignorant. And if one of these does enough reading to come up to speed, to do more than repeat the shallow mainstream pop media coverage, much of which is based on recycled shallow material from 1989, why, then, the person would be covered under the new ban. Tell me, what kind of consensus would that be? No, Hipocrite's approach would be the death of NPOV and, indeed, of Misplaced Pages. It has already done a great deal of damage, which, fortunately, can be undone, because ArbComm is wise to this crap. --Abd (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My summary of the above comment by Abd:

Abd is allowed to edit Cold fusion because he follows policies and guidelines and seeks consensus, listening to those of all POVs and working cooperatively, gently raising for discussion any problems that arise with other editors. He's working to implement the Arbcom decision on Fringe Science, and expects the final resulting cold fusion article to be very different and to be solidly supported by consensus. Those who have read the latest research generally believe there are nuclear processes happening in the cold fusion experiments. To believe this is not a sign of an entrenched POV or COI, and to ban all those who believe so would be the death of NPOV.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking with Durvoa. Please don't interupt us. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a public discussion page; anybody can "interrupt". And your philosophy about how to end the strife in contentuous topics sounds a lot like "Just ban everybody who disagrees with me; that way we'll have peace! Who cares about NPOV anyway?" *Dan T.* (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan, Abd's massive paragraphless stream of conciousness "short" comment was blatently disruptive - he dosen't understand why his long meandering comments add no value, but he's been told this, over and over and over. And yes, my philosophy on how to solve the never ending wars over fringe science topics is to ban everyone who is in opposition to describing things as they actually are. Its an encyclopedia, you know, not an experiment in content creation. Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Abd's refusal to be concise (the requirement for example in ArbCom cases) is unhelpful. It is indeed one of the essential qualities for writing an encyclopedia, lest we forget! In the rare moments when he is concise and speaks directly, he has made snide personal attacks. Is this kind of behaviour condoned or encouraged by his supporters, or are they turning a blind eye? Mathsci (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci's comments in this case are quite unhelpful, they will either be harmless or they will encourage JzG to carry on as if nothing happened, and the result of that will be the loss of his admin bit. I do not "refuse to be concise." I'm not concise when I'm engaged in open discussion, sometimes. Yes, we are writing an encyclopedia, do I ramble on and on on article pages? There are two kinds of discussion here, they work in different ways: (1) short pithy expressions of POV, pointing to sources, brief questions and brief responses. This can work when cooperative context has been established. Otherwise these either are or can be taken as salvos in a battle. (2) extended discussion which is aimed at developing general consensus, or specific consensus, which requires resolving many subquestions. Not everyone is suited for the second kind, so my suggestion is that those for which it works use it, and the others skim it or skip it. There will be opportunity for short, pithy back-and-forth later. See the mini-RfC over the lenr-canr.org link addition at Martin Fleischmann. Long discussion was reduced, using collapse boxes, to conclusions. Anyone could still disagree with those conclusions, and discussion would continue. But at some point it's beating a dead horse. Attacking extended discussion is attacking what is known to work in consensus process, and thus is attacking the ultimate foundation of NPOV for the project. Very dangerous.

Thanks, Mathsci, for the specific example. (1) This was my Talk page, where I have more latitude. (2) Every comment there was literally true. This was sincere advice to JzG, made in response to his notice on my Talk page. Compare it to JzG's comments in response to discussion of the problem on his Talk page, and you will see that you are turning a blind eye to serious refusal to discuss, while dumping on sincere advice offered in a completely non-harassing way. Your POV is showing, Mathsci. I was concise in the RfC (that's why it took so long!), and I can assure you, I'll be concise if this goes to ArbComm, which you seem to be encouraging, in effect. --Abd (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. If you can't be consise, stop writing on talk pages, it's disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Abd's disproportionate response is another example of his ongoing disruption. In his personal attack on JzG that I referenced above, he claimed to represent ArbCom: that is clearly not the case. He has signally failed to explain the mocking tone he used on his talk page, which was a personal attack. This policy applies everywhere on wikipedia, especially on users' talk pages. Editors have been indefinitely blocked for careless words used on their talk pages: no extra latitude is allowed there, except in removing comments. Abd seems to have gone out of his way to WP:BAIT JzG, fortunately with little or no effect.Mathsci (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, is Abd really suggesting that the next step after this RFC is to take Guy to arbitration? Last I checked the most endorsed sections of this were Guys response and my section suggesting that Abd is beating a dead horse and is in danger of beingtopic banned from Guy and Cold Fusion. This really does need to stop now. The RFC outcome is already clear. Fritzpoll has given useful advice to Guy about avoiding the impression of COI in admin actions but specifically states that Guy did nothing wrong. Essentially the community mostly accepts that Guy acted reasonably and that this should drop, albeit there is a thread suggesting greater care to avoid the impression of admining under a COI. With respect to the Guy bashing side, and with due to respect to some of those endorsing sections, but I did notice that lots of editors endorsing are what me might call the "usual suspects" in that they already have well known and hostile entrenched opinions about him. My reading is that the vast majority of uninvolved commentators are not supporting the anti Guy rhetoric. To read this that this needs to go to Arbitration looks like harassment to me now and a failure to understand or listen to the emerging consensus. Abd asked for community input and has got it. They should accept this now and let go. Spartaz 14:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My summary of the above comment by Abd of 13:33, 7 April:

Mathsci's comments might encourage JzG to continue as he's been doing, resulting in loss of admin bit. Abd is concise in some contexts, but elsewhere being concise can look like attacks; or long comments can be necessary for in-depth discussion. Those who don't benefit from long comments can skim or skip them. See discussion at Martin Fleischmann, organized with collapse boxes. The diff Mathsci gave was from Abd's talk page, and is sincere advice.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Coppertwig, you have accurately summarized. This RfC does not indicate consensus, at this point, and it appears to indicate a majority opinion, but majority on what? Three very specific questions were asked, and consensus isn't clear on those questions, and they are quite important questions, and we have reputable editors agreeing with that. What I'm saying is that if there is no consensus here, (and, on an issue like this, 2:1 isn't consensus, remember that it takes 3:1 to grant an admin bit), then there is an arbitratable issue of weight. However, I am not saying that I will, for sure, go to ArbComm. I could, however, go there at any point, as could anyone, opinions have been given here to that effect. My opinion is that simply allowing this RfC to continue for a time, to make sure that the division is not resolvable by discussion, is the best course. But participants should be aware that inflammatory comments will increase the likelihood of an arbitration, and, in some cases, could possibly make the editor an involved party. I'm fully aware that my own behavior will come under scrutiny if this goes to ArbComm. So I'm urging caution for all parties. --Abd (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect Abd, I think that any uninvolved experienced wikipedian can read the consensus quite clearly. If you find this difficult to accept, why not ask one to give you their opinion of how this is going but please take care to ask someone with no axe to grind? Spartaz 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

By "someone with no axe to grind" do you mean "someone who has not previously expressed support for the principle of administrative recusal"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, why would I suggest that? I was thinking you should find someone who a) doesn't hate guy, b) isn't previously involved in Cold Fusion or Fringe debates, c) doesn't already have a position in this trainwreck. Just ask them to read the RFC and advise where they think the balance of the consensus is. I'd personally suggest you ask one of the 'crats if you can find one willing to look through this lot. Judging consensus is what we pay them for after all.... Spartaz 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think RfCs often run for 30 days and that an uninvolved admin may summarize it at the end. You've given your summary, and I'll give mine: we have about 12 editors endorsing statements clearly stating that JzG has used tools while involved, that using tools while involved is against policy, and asking him to stop doing that. We have about double that number of editors endorsing statements that gently suggest to JzG that it would be good to let other admins handle such situations in order to avoid complaints. I would say the consensus of this RfC is a message to JzG advising him to leave it to other admins to handle such situations. To me, the important thing is that JzG begin abiding by the policy; whether he does so because he believes it's the right thing to do or because he wishes to avoid complaints is not all that important. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't dispute your point that this should run for 30 days which is partly why I'm so surprised that Abd was already talking about going for arbitration next. I have absolutely doubt of your good faith and you have certainly been the most reasonable of the proponents for this RFC. The problem is that you are not driving the process and, if you were, I would be very surprised if things had reached the trainwreck that this RFC has become. I am very concerned that Abd is not getting the message that this has to be the end of the matter. Their inability to recognise what the community is already saying about this dispute is deeply concerning, which is why I suggested they went to someone uninvolved to help them understand the emerging consensus. Obviously, I don't know how experienced you are at RFCs, but it would be extremely out of kilter for the rough consensus already emerging for this to change substantially - especially as many of the usual suspects have already crawled out of the woodwork and joined their voices in their expected chorus of disapproval for all things JzG related. Truthfully this is not an RFC that is going to reach a conclusion that Guy should be censured although I do think the advice to take care not to give the impression of admining while involved is probably going to be the strongest sub strand to the conclusions. Its just very frustrating that Abd in particular still can't (or won't) see this and is talking about taking this further because that would be harrassment and ignorning the community consensus and would IMO become unacceptably disruptive and divisive at that point. Spartaz 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, irrespective of procedural issues, could you please indicate clearly at this stage whether you personally regard lenr-canr.org as a reliable source, or a fringe website put up by an amateur with no prior scientific training? Otherwise your wikilawyering here seems unhelpful - a bit like a witch-hunt to catch your fellow wikipedians out. Of course I'm not encouraging JzG to repeat this kind of action, unless there is an analogous fringe website being pushed for inclusion in a WP article in similar circumstances. My view is that JzG is indeed a tad outspoken and headstrong but that this current confrontational procedure, initiated by Abd, is not a helpful way to move forward, particularly if Abd's ultimate intention is an RfAr (this SPA seems to make no secret of that).

The website www.aias.us is referred to in Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory, but at the moment there is little support for that fringe pseudoscientific theory, based as it is on fairly basic mathematical errors and misunderstandings in differential geometry. However if there were massive support in the future and the contents of this website were pushed as being a valid source by editors playing the system, I would definitely support a blacklisting. I doubt that this will happen.

That is why I think that Coppertwig is envisaging hypothetical situations which fall far outside the reality of the real scientific world. This reality includes for example the fact that Biberian is employed as a lowly Maitre-de-Conference on one of the campuses of my present university and was the treasurer of a cult that was at one time banned by the French government. Another reality is that Martin Fleischmann was a close friend of my family when I was a toddler, half a century ago, before the internet was dreamed of. Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Mathsci, please do not derail this RfC, which is about admin behavior, by incivility and by trolling asking for content positions and argument. No claim has been made by me that lenr-canr.org satisfies WP:RS, and it's irrelevant here. I'm not an SPA, period, and your consistent disruptive comments here are radically out of place. I'm not going to warn you on your Talk page, but don't be surprised if someone else does. Stop it. --Abd (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As to consensus here, as the matter stands at the moment, Spartaz raised the issue on my Talk page, and I discussed it in detail there, if anyone is interested. I assure editors that I would not file an RfAr without the support of an experienced editor, no matter what my own personal opinion is. And if we want the opinion of neutral editors, why don't we invite them to participate here, by making notice of this RfC, say, on the Village Pump? Please remember the rules on canvassing, so, I'd suggest that the text of any such notice be a matter of general agreement here, to ensure that it's neutral. Since Cold fusion has been so heavily affected by JzG action, it's also possible a notice would go there. But I'm not about to take any action at this point that isn't supported by consensus. --Abd (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You do seem to me to look a bit like an SPA. Most of my contributions are to mainspace articles. I am unaware that I have made a personal attack on you. Why are you now making ad hominem remarks about me? Many people are upset by your decision to open this RfC. Your claims to represent consensus seem at present unfounded. Also what you have said about ArbCom in several places seems to be unfounded. In RL, I am preparing lectures on Selberg's trace formula to be given in Cambridge and in France after Easter; bits are beginning to make their way onto WP as I detect gaps or errors here (eg in Representations of the Lorentz group). Why not edit something urelated to fringe science for a change? Just a thought. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Could I please ask that you refactor the word "trolling"? Please read WP:NPA. Mathsci (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done. The vast bulk of my edits have nothing to do with fringe science. In recent months, though, I've been, indeed, focusing on Cold fusion, which is fascinating. Is Cold fusion "fringe science"? To answer that question is actually quite difficult. If we look at popular sources and news media, and especially at older reports, the answer is obviously yes, and, indeed, there is a lot of older opinion that it is pseudoscience. If we look at peer-reviewed publications from 1989, we could likewise conclude something like this, but even then there are some problems. The 1989 DOE review, for example, did not treat the topic as fringe, you do not have a review panel like that concluding that further research should be done with pseudoscience, certainly, though possibly with fringe science that is really "emerging science" (i.e., still controversial). However, later peer-reviewed published research and reviews are overwhelmingly in the other direction. It is probably true that the majority of "mainstream scientists" still reject cold fusion, but unlikely that the majority of, say, electrochemists do this; the majority of physicists almost certainly still reject it, but much of the recently published research is coming from physicists, including qualified hot-fusion specialists. It is, in truth, a difficult call, once one goes beyond factions of editors trading insults and hostile edits. I really don't want to get far into content details here; my point is only that there is reason to doubt the knee-jerk response to Cold fusion as "fringe," and further assumptions based on that.

It has taken me months to get up to speed on this topic. In what is a first for me in my Misplaced Pages history, I've purchased some of the major books published on it, besides reading on-line until my eyes are bleary. It's a field where it is terribly easy to make snap judgments that are wrong (both pro- and con-). It's a field where contemporary newspaper reporters state, as fact, old comments and conclusions that made some sense in 1989, but which are preposterous now, given the record and what is in peer-reviewed journals, for example the claim, oft-repeated, that "nobody was able to replicate their results." I have a list of something like 150 peer-reviewed publications showing confirmation of excess heat, which is the core of what Fleischmann found. (Fleischmann's radiation findings were discredited as artifacts, this is generally accepted among cold fusion researchers, but there is other work showing radiation and nuclear ash, much more solid, in fact conclusive, since then. Different radiation, different levels, than what was expected, but nuclear, and not present in controls.) And I could go on and on. And it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong, our consensus process, if we use it, will handle finding NPOV. Our sourcing guidelines are adequate, provided that we seek consensus in applying them. As to the length of my responses, you can toss shit at a wall in a flash, and it takes far longer to clean it up. If the length bothers you, please don't read it, but you might also try not tossing shit. You are not obligated to read anything I write, unless it's a warning on your Talk page and it's brief. If you think something I write might be important, but it's too long, ask me or someone else to explain it to you more briefly. However, I do refuse to treat the Misplaced Pages community as consisting only of impatient and factionally-attached knee-jerk thinkers who want tight text only, so they can decide to oppose the editor or not, who don't understand the value of the extended discussion that is often necessary in finding consensus on difficult topics. If you think it's off-topic, you can always try deleting it and see what happens. You have as much right to your opinion as I do to mine, or do you disagree? --Abd (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Abd. However, I think Mathsci has a valid question. On this RfC, I'm asking JzG to abide by policy. If I understand the question about wikilawyering correctly, Mathsci wants to know whether I just want to enforce policy for the sake of enforcing policy (or for some ulterior motive), or whether there is good reason to enforce this policy in this situation. According to my reading of WP:WIARM, whenever someone wants to enforce a policy they should be prepared to explain why it makes sense to apply that policy in that situation (and not just "because it's the policy").

As an endorser but not a certifier, and as a writer of an "outside view", I believe that my participation here is not necessarily dependent on any involvement I may have in the situations. Any opinions I might have about lenr-canr.org are expressed in the discussion on the Martin Fleischmann talk page, that I gave a link to above.

The reason for administrative recusal is to ensure that decisions are made in a relatively neutral, objective fashion, so as to represent community consensus. Here we have IPs blocked, a page protected as a redirect, a blacklisting, a talk page that was deleted. I'm not convinced that these actions reflected community consensus or were what an uninvolved admin would have done. For example, the talk page was restored: that suggests that that the community didn't endorse the deletion. Redirects are normally not protected and I'm not convinced there's any reason such as frequent vandalism for it to continue to be protected. Wiki-editing thrives on freedom to edit. If the actions would not have been done by an uninvolved admin, then they shouldn't have been done. Had these actions been done by an uninvolved admin, any who oppose them might have been more accepting of them; or they might have felt freer to ask to have them reversed. There would have been a lot less time spent in discussion about whether the actions were proper or not. I think we can take it as obvious that the people using the IPs would have preferred not to be blocked; so there are clearly people opposing at least some of the actions.

So yes, I believe there are real reasons for enforcing the policy in this specific case, which are exactly in line with the reason the policy is there.

I feel strongly that we do better, in general, if we follow processes. For example, we calmly post our votes in AfD and abide by the result, whatever it is, even if we personally disagree with it. It wouldn't work well to allow deletionist admins to just delete whatever they personally believe should be deleted. I want to see NPOV in the cold fusion articles supported by consensus-building processes, not summary decisions by one individual.

It wouldn't be a good idea to decide RfCs like this based on who has more friends, or based on which side of an underlying content dispute has more supporters. The question about use of admin tools while involved needs to be addressed directly. The policy is there for a reason, and that reason is the same reason I'm endorsing this RfC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re summarizing: you're welcome, Abd, and thanks for confirming whether I had summarized accurately. If anyone ever finds that Abd's posts on any topic are too long, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll probably be happy to provide a summary. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Stay on target

I don't think it is helpful to shift the focus of this RFC to Abd. If you recognize that not every editor is a tech savvy 20-something, and apply a bit of patience and understanding, it is quite easy to get along with Abd. Let's try to stop the inflammatory remarks on both sides of this conflict. Though Guy can be somewhat abrasive, he has good intentions and is right much more often than not. We should try to reduce the conflict and help people get along. Jehochman 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." I haven't been 20-something for years. Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"May" does not equate to "should". If you want to discuss Abd's behavior open and RfC on him. This RfC is focused on JzGs use of administrative tools while involved in a content dispute. --GoRight (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, this RfC is focused on Abd beating dead horses, actually. Hipocrite (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Those who certified this RfC seem to be focused more on the former than the latter. You appear to be simply trying to obfuscate the point. I have no idea what your motive for doing so may be, but obfuscation does seem to be your goal. --GoRight (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused about how RFC's work then. Is there an exception from WP:OWN for people who certify RFC's? I think Abd's abuse of JzG is far more damaging to the encyclopedia than the blacklisting of one fringy-mc-fringerson site ages ago in an action that was already blessed by the community at large. Apparently, almost everyone else agrees with me. Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that this RfC has reached a critical point where it can go one of two ways. If it is part of a dispute resolution process then it needs to broaden its remits an look at all involved parties. If, on the other hand, it is purely about JzG's uses of admin privilages with respect to cold fusion, then I think everything has already been said and there is little to be gained in keeping the RfC open any longer and we should move to close.--Salix (talk): 22:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)