Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abd (talk | contribs) at 15:08, 23 February 2009 (Request for mediation/intervention/warning for JzG re related admin action while involved with Cold fusion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

this is a page for notices to the interested members of the Misplaced Pages community from this user. Please do not add notices to this page, but add them to my Talk page. I will pass them on if I believe they are appropriate for wider attention.

Any edit to this page not made by me, except as may be required by policy, may be reverted on sight. The attached Talk page should also not be edited except by me, it redirects to User talk:Abd/Notices/Comments, where comment is welcome. (talk) --Abd (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation/intervention/warning for JzG re admin action while involved with article

User:Abd/JzG is an evidence page originally compiled for use before ArbComm in an RfAr filed by JzG, in which he asked for ArbComm approval of an action which taken while involved with the related article, Cold fusion, and in extended dispute with the affected editor. It was cited there, and substantial comment indicated concern about action while involved. See my !vote in the MfD Most Delete !votes there are based on no RfC filing. RfC requires:

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem.

While there have been attempts on related matters, on article Talk pages, on the core dispute, use of tools while involved, the matter isn't so clear, to my knowledge, as to a second editor. I prefer that someone directly attempt to resolve it with JzG on his Talk, even if this means that the evidence page is deleted pending the RfC or DRV.

This is the core: JzG was heavily involved in editing Cold fusion and related articles, taking a clearly polarized position, with uncivil edit summaries and some level of edit warring. He also used his tools, blocking a user with whom he had extended dispute, blocking another user solely on POV and a false claim of block evasion, editing a page while protected and without consensus, directly blacklisting web sites bypassing the normal consultative procedure. He has denied the claim of involved admin action , he refused to reverse. If any of this is not clear, please contact me for details.

Desired resolution: JzG acknowledges use of tools while involved and pledges not to repeat this action, with Cold fusion or elsewhere. A voluntary topic ban on Cold fusion related issues may be requested. Absent this, RfC would be filed, and, depending on outcome, ArbComm could be requested to desysop JzG and possibly to topic ban him; the desysopping is clearly required by precedent where an admin does not acknowledge error, and such privileged action, absent emergency, strikes at the heart of Misplaced Pages process. There were no emergencies involved.

Please notify me if you have requested JzG refrain from involved admin action previously, without resolution, and you are willing to certify the attempt in an RfC. --Abd (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Blacklist issues

• I'm working on blacklist problems. Related to this is User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org, a case which shows that the blacklist, intended to deal with massive linkspam, is resulting in damage to the project and to editors. The page User:Abd/Blacklist will be used to develop a preliminary consensus (for my use), watching that page may be fairly efficient; otherwise there are discussions taking place in many places. Yesterday, I recreated the article Lyrikline.org as part of my remediation effort, but lyrikline.org is simply one case out of, possibly, many, where the tail is wagging the dog: content decisions are being made and massively enforced by a few editors. Linkspam guidelines are not being followed. Comment by interested editors is welcome on my Talk or in the various places where the issue is being discussed. --Abd (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comments including mention of User:Abd/Blacklist stirred up some hornets. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repetitive_removal_of_discussion_by_Hu12_on_MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. I've developed some understanding of what should be done to mitigate damage from excessive blacklisting. Most notably, the delisting and whitelisting process should not be controlled by admins who work extensively on the blacklist, otherwise, in the extreme (and an example is shown in that AN/I report), the same admin is complainant, prosecutor, judge (no jury), executioner, and appeals court. --Abd (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• Developments in this area are ongoing, slow progress is being made. Several whitelistings/delistings have resulted from my work, but that is highly inefficient, so I will be addressing the process; my preliminary conclusion is that blacklisting and delisting/whitelisting process should be separated and blacklist admins encouraged to attend to blacklisting alone, with delisting and whitelisting requests considered on separate pages, and with community recommendations developed before a conclusion by an admin, who should probably not be a blacklist regular; the blacklist admins seem to be often motivated to justify the original blacklisting, but justified blacklisting doesn't have any bearing on the usability of a specific link (whitelisting) -- usually -- nor should it control delisting exclusively. There are alternate responses to concerns about linkspam for legitimate sites; as an example, de.wikipedia has whitelisted, in toto, Lyrikline.org; to address concerns about continued linkspam, an editor volunteered to watch for problem links, and they didn't take place. That kind of response is almost impossible for blacklist admins, because they are already overworked dealing with the flood of linkspam. Similarly, there is no reason why we should not, as a community, field requests from site owners claiming that their site has been unfairly blacklisted; this is, again, impossible for blacklist admins, who would be overwhelmed by requests from spammers and who have thus developed a de-facto policy, often stated: "We do not consider requests from site owners." Who is "we," I might ask? Is this a question of WP:OWN? The work of blacklisters is very much appreciated, but there is also the goal of the project, which isn't preventing linkspam, it's building an encyclopedia, and that can suggest access to external pages, even if sometimes links are added inappropriately. --Abd (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD for User:Abd/JzG

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/JzG contains some remarkable comments. Details are there. --Abd (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)